Why Did Anti-War Democrats Vote for the War Supplemental? Three votes would have defeated it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vickrey07092010.html

The vote in the House of Representatives last Thursday (July 1, 2010) approved $33 billion more for Barack Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Most accounts of the vote in the progressive media viewed the vote positively, focusing on the various anti-war amendments that failed, but got sizable votes. The one with broadest support (162 "Yes" votes) would have required Obama to produce an exit plan. Its sponsors included Democrats David Obey (WI) and Jim McGovern (MA). Another would have funded the exit of the troops. It was sponsored by Democrat Barbara Lee (CA) and got 100 "Yes" votes. An even stronger anti-war amendment, however, got only 25 "Yes" votes.

<edit>

The first key number is the vote on the main bill itself. Because all of the GOP voted against it in order to reject the domestic spending sweetners added by Nancy Pelosi, this vote was much closer. It passed by 215 to 210. If only 3 more "Yes" voters would have voted "No", the funding bill would have failed (by 212 "Yes" vs. 213 "No"). Failure of the bill to pass would have been an earthquake in US politics.

The other key number overlooked by most progressive media accounts of the vote was this: enough leading anti-war Democrats voted for the actual funding bill that they could have defeated it had they voted "No". Among leading anti-war Democrats, which ones voted for the war funding?

<edit>

Next, we have the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, started in May 2010 by John Conyers. In the morning on the day of the vote, the caucus held a press conference to urge a NO vote on the war funding. Five of the eight Democrats conducting this press conference actually voted for the war funding that evening, after participating in the press conference about voting "No"! Conyers, Bob Filner (CA), and Alan Grayson (FL) voted "No"; voting "Yes" were Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Maxine Waters (CA), Mike Honda (CA), Judy Chu (CA), and Barbara Lee.

<edit>

We would expect these Democrats to not only sponsor their anti-war amendments, but to also vote against the final war funding bill itself. But all three of the Democrat anti-war amendment co-sponsors mentioned above voted for the final war funding bill: David Obey (WI), Jim McGovern (MA), and Barbara Lee (CA).

more...

the war supplemental had gone down to defeat?

I don't understand why they attached it to the war bill.

I do wish people would stop using the rightwing version of that adjective.

then to draw attention by standing by what they say?

Or - because they lie as easily as they breathe and have such short memories they cannot believe people might remember how they flip-flop?

regarding a significant drawing down of troop levels to begin next Summer as the U.S turns over it's war efforts there to the Afghanians. All in all many liberal Democrats are satisfied that the U.S. made one final effort to stabalize Iraq on our way out the door, and that Iraq is now slightly more stable and we are definately on the way out. The crap will really hit the fan next summer if Obama stalls on troop withdrawals.

and hand their jobs over to Republicans who would ride it to victory as they did after Democrats defunded the Vietnam War.

The American electorate is fickle and easily persuaded by bullshit.

Doing the right thing carries a high price.

the elections would turn to the dems if we end these freaking wars!

And will always be bullied by war-mongers to toe-the-war-line. This has been true for Dems ever since WWII. If the Dems aren't voting for war to keep their weapons industry donors happy they're doing it to keep the Republicans from demagogueing them on the campaign trail. There will never be a peace dividend.

And, politicians don't want to appear to have "lost" it.

seems to be the all purpose excuse for human stupidity.

nt