"Rep. McDermott Statement on Voting Against Supplemental Appropriations Bill"

Jim McDermott:

Today, Rep. Jim McDermott issued the following statement outlining his reasons for voting against the supplemental appropriations bill:

“It doesn’t matter if we commit 30,000 or 300,000 additional troops, I do not believe the U.S. military alone can bring about the change necessary to stabilize Afghanistan. American troops have now been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade and have been doing a magnificent job of what’s being asked of them. But U.S. and NATO forces are not equipped to solve the kinds of problems facing the nation. I believe that if we really want to help the Afghan people form a functioning government that serves its people and respects human rights, we must do it with additional aid and support—not with more troops.

“After spending nearly $350 billion on this war, I have not seen nearly enough progress and will not support simply intensifying an approach that has produced few results. The responsibility for building a stable Afghanistan ultimately lies with the Afghan people, and we must pursue a much broader and more comprehensive strategy to support them. While this appropriations bill contained funding for several programs that I steadfastly support, I cannot in good conscience vote to send soldier after soldier into a battle I do not believe we can ever win.”

"The War Funding Vote: A Credit Card for War, But No Cash for Teachers"

Raul Grijalva's Diary on Kos:

Once again, war is being paid for with a credit card while investments in our children’s future are tossed aside. These investments – $10 billion for teacher jobs, $1 billion for summer youth employment, $5 billion for Pell grants, $701 million for border security – were cut from the war funding bill coming to the House floor despite being fully paid for and not adding to the budget deficit. They have been jettisoned in favor of further borrowed war spending. Today’s bill doesn’t include anything to maintain first responder, police or firefighter positions despite the dramatic need for those jobs in every community in America. We believe this is fiscal insanity and a moral tragedy. MORE...

Howie P.S.: Here's more bad news:

Only 102 Democrats joined a dozen Republicans and the war money passed, 308-114.

"Dear President Obama"

ImpeccableLiberalCredentials's diary on Kos:

I am saddened to hear that the White House resorted to threats against freshman members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in your efforts to pass the 105.9 billion dollar war funding supplemental.

I am glad that my Representative Keith Ellison voted against additional funding for the war in Iraq. I hope that you will not block the reasonable requests of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to require the Pentagon to create plans to exit Afghanistan, such as Rep. McGovern's HR 2404, which should have been allowed as an amendment to your war funding request.

I worked hard on your campaign in the general election. Please make those months of effort worthwhile by demonstrating moral leadership and good conduct in office, not by resorting to tactics made famous by Republicans like 'The Hammer' Tom Delay.

All of your Open Government Initiatives are a farce if you are threatening to shut out members of Congress in your own party over this important issue of conscience. We elected Rep. Keith Ellison on his promise to end war funding. We expect that he and other progressives will continue to have access to the White House.

Please end these wars, and please end these threats towards your fellow Democrats.

Thank you!

Howie P.S.: I have no doubt that Rhambo and others are "working" Congress on health care reform, I'm just not sure if the intensity is equal to what they are applying to the war funding bill. I found this comment by Mad Kossack to the post particularly incisive, if a bit overwrought. :

Why isn't President Obama threatening members of Congress who aren't supporting health care reform?

It's very interesting to me that President Obama is throwing his weight around when it comes to getting money to continue the ill-conceived foreign wars of his predecessor, but when it comes to passing a strong public health care reform plan, I don't see any arm twisting going on. I don't get the feeling that anyone is going to much have their feelings hurt by President Obama if they go off and support Tom Daschle and Bob Dole's Sell-Out Initiative to Subvert Health Care Reform.

I'd like to see some tough talk on issues that those of us who supported the president's campaign care deeply about. Alas, my breath will not be held while I wait for that glorious moment to arrive.

Barack Obama

"McDermott votes for war funding" (Updated)

UPDATE: Geov Parrish kindly responded to my question below:

The real reason: McDermott is a *very* close ally of Nancy Pelosi. No way he was going to buck her on this.

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.

Joel Connelly:

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.

The bill narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives with near-unanimous Republican opposition.

"I have always opposed the Iraq War and will never waiver in that opposition, but today I voted for the supplemental appropriation requested by the president," McDermott said in a statement.

"I did not arrive at this decision easily, but I did so because the President needs -- and deserves - our support on this issue.

"We voted for change last November and it rarely happens as quickly as we want, but we elected a man who opposed the war, but who inherited it when he became President. We owe President Obama a chance to lead America safely out of Iraq."

At the same time, McDermott warned that Afghanistan "could become another quagmire. We must not let that happen."

McDermott was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War from the time that the Bush Administration was ginning up its weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale for the 2003 invasion.

He went to Baghdad in the fall of 2002, and from Iraq's capital did a famous interview with ABC's "This Week" suggesting that the Bush Administration would lie to get the U.S. into war.

But McDermott's profile in Congress has changed. He became chairman of a key subcommittee on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee when Democrats recaptured the House in 2006.

With Republican Rep. Jerry Weller of Illinois, McDermott coauthored and engineered passage of legislation reforming foster care in America.

He has been a significant player in health care legislation, twice visiting the White House to argue for the so-called "public option."

The war funding bill generated unexpected controversy.

Republicans almost always vote for war appropriations. But they balked at a
provision sending money to the International Monetary Fund to finance loans to poor countries.

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.

Howie P.S.: Can anyone tell me the "real" reason?

"White House Wins On War, IMF Funds"

Ryan Grim (HuffPo):

As the clock began to count down the minutes that members of the House had to cast their vote on a war-funding bill topping $100 billion, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Calif.) waded into enemy territory.

The anti-war Democrat, who'd been whipping hard against the measure, stood behind a klatch of Republicans, watching the GOP computer and taking notes. It's not often that Kucinich and House Republicans find themselves on the same side. But the GOPers were determined to oppose what they call a bailout for foreign banks, and antiwar Democrats hoped to ally with them to block funding for wars they've long opposed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), meanwhile, hovered by the front desk, beaming. As the 15-minute vote wound down to zero, she was still far from the 218 she needed for passage, but she showed no sign of concern. The vote was held open as enough Democrats stepped forward to vote for the war money.

Fifty-one Democrats opposed the war funds the last time it came before the House. There was little pressure on them one way or the other. But when the Senate added the line of credit for the IMF and Republicans announced opposition, votes that had previously been worthless took on heightened value. The White House and Democratic leadership went into high gear, threatening and offering deals in exchange for a yes vote. This time around, 32 Democrats stayed as no votes.

Democrats who switched tapped Pelosi on the shoulder before walking back to their seats, swapping smiles, as Pelosi studied the lit-up board on the wall that displays the votes.

The tally hit 218, but Democrats seemed not to notice. When Pelosi looked up and saw it reading 220, she left the well of the floor and found Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wisc.), the Appropriations Committee Chairman, in his seat. The two shared a congratulatory handshake.

The vote was gaveled to a close, with five Republicans joining 221 Democrats. Pelosi turned her gaze back to the board, studying her members' votes.

She was no doubt pleased to see that these names sported a green box next to them this time, reversals from their previous no votes...

Howie P.S.: Too bad we'll probably never know what was offered to the "switchers" in return for their vote. While Rahmbo wasn't mentioned in the article, it's hard to imagine he wasn't also involved. Jane Hamsher gives us a little peek behind the curtain: "Whip Count: The Final Total, or How We Went from 0 to 32."


Barack Obama

"Pelosi Pushes Democrats To Vote For War Money"

CQ Politics:

House leaders appear ready to push ahead with a floor vote on the next war funding bill as early as Tuesday.

It’s not yet clear that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has persuaded enough fellow Democrats to support it. Democrats are the ones who’ll have to supply the votes because Republicans say they are going to stay united and vote against it.

“Nancy’s working it,” said Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha , D-Pa. “It’s going to be a very close vote.”

The spending package totals $106 billion.

Republicans particularly object to the $5 billion in the bill to let President Obama leverage $108 billion in additional lending by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

A total of 168 Republicans supported the bill when the House passed another version of the measure on a vote of 368-60, on May 14 . Fifty-one anti-war Democrats opposed the bill at that time.

Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the anti-war House Democrats, said the White House was threatening to withdraw support from freshmen who opposed the bill, saying, “You’ll never hear from us again.” She said the House leadership is also targeting the freshmen.

“It’s really hard for the freshmen,” she said. “Nancy’s pretty powerful.”

Another anti-war leader, Dennis J. Kucinich , D-Ohio, also predicted a close vote.

“There’s a good number of members holding solid,” said Kucinich. “From what I can see, people are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it, and explain why they switched, if they switch.”

Some liberal Democrats in the House were assuaged by a conference committee decision to drop a Senate-passed provision that would have barred the public release of photos depicting abuse of U.S. prisoners.

Louise M. Slaughter , D-N.Y., said she would now support the bill.

“I was never about photos,” Slaughter said. “I was about freedom of information.”

Howie P.S.: I hope the proponents of health care reform in the Senate and White House are "pushing" as hard as for the public option as Nancy is on this vote. It was reported that the White House threatened Members of the House with

"you won't be hearing from us ever again" if you do not support the war spending bill.

"Why Vote 'Yes' for the War and the IMF?" (with video)

John Nichols (The Nation) with video (02:53):

The Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are aggressively whipping House Democrats to support the 2009 war supplemental bill that seeks to steer another $10o billion in US tax dollars into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time squandering at least $5 billion on the failed economic schemes of the International Monetary Fund.

But the more than 51 Democrats who opposed an earlier version of the supplemental are giving her a hard time and that's making the project a hard sell for Pelosi.

And rightly so. This is a very bad bill.

Californian Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, leading critics of the Iraq War, pointed out in a letter to their colleagues that "the primary intent of this legislation is to continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." That, they point out, is not what President Obama or Democrats in Congress were elected to do. "Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010," argue Woolsey and Kucinich. "Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all of our troops and contractors home immediately."

Masschusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, another anti-war Democrat, expressing concerns about the administration's push to increase the troop presence in Afghanistan, says, "As much as I love President Obama, I believe that this administration needs to come up with some benchmarks and an exit strategy."

Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur told Congressional Quarterly about personal lobbying of members by Pelosi:

Earlier this week, the Speaker approached Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio progressive who sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and asked Kaptur to reconsider her "no" vote.

Rather than making a case based on the policy, Kaptur said, the Speaker asserted that Obama and congressional Democrats needed to clear the decks of "the last old business" left over from the Bush administration.

Kaptur was unmoved.

"I don't agree with her analysis that we're cleaning up for Bush," said Kaptur, who worries that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly and that the administration lacks a plan for success in Afghanistan. "This is Obama's first chance. This is his first wave."

The questioning of the war is appropriate and necessary.

But it is also right to question the money for the IMF, which Kucinich and California Congressman Bob Filner, another Democrat, worry could be part of a broader scheme to "bail out private European banks with U.S. taxpayer money."

Even if the money goes straight into IMF coffers for its loan programs, that's a problem, as the IMF continues to pressure countries around the world to cut social services and undermine infrastructure as part of wrongheaded "structural adjustment" initiatives.

As of now, the word is that the conference report on the war supplemental will reach the floor early next week.

That means that lobbying of members this weekend could be crucial.

As Kucinich says, "From what I can see, [members who so far have refused to bow to pressure from the administration and Pelosi] are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it..."

Opponents of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of unsound economic strategies, should feed those concerns by telling their representatives to vote "No" to war and the IMF.

Barack Obama

"House, Senate Reach Deal On War Spending Bill" (audio)

NPR, with audio (03:41):

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on a $100 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. Lawmakers also dropped their outright opposition to letting Guantanamo detainees enter the United States.

Barack Obama

War funding supplemental: Whip Count Update: 32 “No,” 15 “Leaning No” — We Need 39

Jane Hamsher:

I guess the Whip Count deities must be smiling on us this morning. I'm counting 32 "No" votes for the supplemental, and 15 "leaning no." We need 39 votes.

Opposed	Leaning No	Undecided	Yes
Tammy Baldwin Yvette Clarke John Conyers Jerry Costello Peter DeFazio* Lloyd Doggett Donna Edwards Sam Farr Bob Filner Alan Grayson Raul Grijalva Luis Gutierrez Jay Inslee Steve Kagen Marcy Kaptur Dennis Kucinich Barbara Lee* John Lewis* Eric Massa James McGovern Michael Michaud Richard Neal* Jim Oberstar Chellie Pingree Jose Serrano Carol Shea-Porter Pete Stark Nikki Tsongas Nydia Velasquez Maxine Waters Diane Watson* Lynn Woolsey	Steve Cohen Keith Ellison* Chakah Fattah Mike Honda Doris Matsui* Ed Markey* Jim McDermott* Gwen Moore Jared Polis* Jan Schakowsky* Jackie Speier Mike Thompson* John Tierney Mel Watt* Anthony Weiner	Michael Capuano Andre Carson Donna Christenson Jim Cooper Danny Davis Bill Delahunt Al Green Phil Hare Maurice Hinchey Paul Hodes Carolyn Maloney Jim Moran Grace Napolitano Donald Payne Charles Rangel Laura Richardson Linda Sanchez Bobby Scott John Tanner Ed Towns Peter Welch	Robert Brady Elijah Cummings Barney Frank Marcia Fudge Alcee Hastings Jesse Jackson Jr. Sheila Jackson-Lee Kendrick Meek George Miller Jerold Nadler

I've updated the list based on a conversation with Paul Martin of Peace Action, who is up on the Hill talking to members. He gave the following updates:

Opposed	Leaning No	Leaning Yes
Edwards Honda Kagan Michaud Oberstar Pingree Serrano Shea-Porter Tsongas Velasquez	Fattah Moore Tierney	Welch

I've also learned that this information confirms what others have seen on a list that members of Congress are sharing with each other, which may not have been seen by their staffs. Unsurprisingly, Jan Schakowsky is not on it.

That means there are 32 "no" votes, and we need to move 7 move votes into that category to stop the bill from passing.

I've also added Carolyn Maloney to the list -- if she's going to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand from the left, she probably needs to hear from constituents (Jonathan Tasini is saying that he would vote "no"). I'm adding Paul Hodes too. We supported him as a Blue America candidate, and I know many of our readers gave him money for his campaign based on the fact that he opposed the war.

These calls are having a big effect. Members are hearing that "Cash for Clunkers" is chump change, and not a satisfactory reason for switching their votes on an issue like war funding. They're being heavily pressured by Rahm Emanuel to abandon their principles, and the only support they're getting for doing the right thing are your calls.

Please use our Whip Tool and let members of congress know that you stand by them in opposing this bill -- your call is important.

Howie P.S.: Ryan Grim (HuffPo) reports "White House Browbeats Dem Freshmen On War Money: You'll Never Hear From Us Again."

Barack Obama

War funding supplemental: "Updated Whip Count — To the Phones!"

Jane Hamsher:

Many representatives have said they didn't know how they would vote on the war funding supplemental until they saw the conference report.

Well, now they've seen it. It blows off Maxine Waters' concerns about the IMF funding completely. And "Cash for Clunkers" is supposed to make progressives abandon their commitment to vote against any war funding that doesn't have a timetable for troop withdrawal. Call them and tell them that you supported them over the years because of that commitment. They should take it as seriously as you did and shouldn't throw it away for chump change.

It takes 39 Democrats voting against the bill to defeat it. Right now, here is our unofficial whip count:

Opposed	Leaning No	Undecided	Yes
Tammy Baldwin* Yvette Clarke * John Conyers Peter DeFazio* Lloyd Doggett Sam Farr Bob Filner Alan Grayson Raul Grijalva Luis Gutierrez Jay Inslee Marcy Kaptur Dennis Kucinich Barbara Lee* John Lewis* Eric Massa James McGovern Richard Neal* Pete Stark Maxine Waters Diane Watson* Lynn Woolsey	Steve Cohen Jerry Costello Peter DeFazio Donna Edwards* Keith Ellison* Mike Honda Doris Matsui* Ed Markey* Jim McDermott* Jared Polis* Jan Schakowsky* Carol Shea-Porter* Jackie Speier Mike Thompson* Diane Watson* Mel Watt* Anthony Weiner	Michael Capuano Andre Carson Donna Christenson Jim Cooper Danny Davis Bill Delahunt Chaka Fattah Al Green Phil Hare Maurice Hinchey Steve Kagen Michael Michaud Gwen Moore Jim Moran Grace Napolitano Donald Payne Chellie Pingree Charles Rangel Laura Richardson Linda Sanchez Bobby Scott Jose Serrano John Tanner John Tierney Ed Towns Nikki Tsongas Nydia Velasquez Peter Welch	Robert Brady Elijah Cummings Barney Frank Marcia Fudge Alcee Hastings Jesse Jackson Jr. Sheila Jackson-Lee Kendrick Meek George Miller Jerold Nadler

* Indicates member whose office provided information through Citizen Whip Count

Please call members who are committed to "oppose" the bill and thank them for having the courage of their convictions, and say that you hope they'll continue to stand by them.

Tell those who are "leaning no" that you hope they have enough information now to commit to voting "no."

Tell those who are "undecided" that Cash for Clunkers isn't adequate reason to turn their backs on the promises they made.

And for those who have decided to abandon their principles -- well, now we know how to measure the depth of their convictions.

Your calls count more today than ever. We're hearing from everyone who calls that these offices are aware that feelings are running strong on this vote, and they're taking your calls very seriously. They'll be looking for cues from you about which way they should lean.

Please let them know how you feel today -- your call is important.

Barack Obama