102 House Democrats break with president
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff  |  July 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — A bitterly divided House approved $37 billion in new spending yesterday for the war in Afghanistan after a heated floor debate about whether the conflict is unnecessary and diverting resources from the larger fight against terrorism.

With a 308-to-114 vote, the House provided the two-thirds needed for approval, an indication that there is still support for President Obama’s war strategy.

But 102 Democrats voted against their party’s leader. Among the 10-member, all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation, nine voted against the funding, with only Representative Stephen Lynch of South Boston siding with Obama in favor of the measure.

Representative James P. McGovern, a leading antiwar Democrat, has been strongly critical of the additional funding and spent much of yesterday lobbying colleagues to block the funding. Much of the debate was stoked by the discussion of newly disclosed documents that reveal previously unreported challenges facing US troops in Afghanistan, with divisions developing even among top Democrats.

“All of us are dedicated to defeating Al Qaeda wherever they are, but our current policy in Afghanistan is deeply flawed,’’ the Worcester Democrat said yesterday. “It is a mistake to give this administration yet another blank check.’’

“What the hell are we doing?’’ he told reporters later. “How long is this going to go on?’’

But Obama urged Democrats to support the war funding, saying it was vital to keeping the 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan in December.

“We’ve substantially increased our commitment there, insisted upon greater accountability from our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developed a new strategy that can work, and put in place a team, including one of our finest generals, to execute that plan,’’ Obama said in the Rose Garden before the vote. “Now we have to see that strategy through.’’

The 102 Democrats who voted against the funding request yesterday compared with 32 Democrats who opposed Afghan war funding last year.

Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, has been a key proponent of the overall mission in Afghanistan, even as McGovern and other opponents of the Afghan war have seized on new documents to argue anew that Obama should begin withdrawing the troops. The trove of 92,000 classified documents, leaked Sunday night by the organization WikiLeaks, suggests the US-backed Pakistani government has been secretly helping Taliban insurgents US troops are fighting in Afghanistan.

“Wake up, America,’’ said Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat and two-time presidential candidate. “WikiLeaks’ release of secret war documents gave us 92,000 reasons to end the war. Pick one.’’

Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, formally brought the issue to the House floor yesterday morning as chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations. But he said he was conflicted and would vote against the bill because he opposes the war funding.

“I have the obligation to bring this [funding bill] before the House to allow the institution to work its will,’’ Obey 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.’’

But supporters of the continued funding said it would be wrong to eliminate funding in the middle of the war. They argued that the policies were working, and if the US pulled out from the region, it would become a further breeding ground for terrorists.

The debate juxtaposed Democrats criticizing their party’s president over the war and Republicans defending the policy of a president they hope will fail on many other issues.

“For us to cut aid and assistance at a time when we’re trying to win the war would, in my opinion, would be insane,’’ said Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican.

“We’ve been through all of this wrangling, and for what?’’ House Republican leader John Boehner said at a news conference. “All we’ve created is more uncertainty for our troops in the field, more uncertainty for the Pentagon, and it’s all unnecessary.’’

“We cannot afford to wait another minute to get this overdue package to the president,’’ said Representative Jerry Lewis, a California Republican. “Let’s support our men and women in uniform.’’

But the issue also appeared to galvanize antiwar Democrats, who rose in the House to oppose the continued funding.

“It’s time to change direction in Afghanistan, it’s time to vote for jobs in our own country,’’ said Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat.

“I believe in this nation and I believe in our soldiers,’’ said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat. “I salute them. And it is time to bring them home.’’

Earlier this month, McGovern cosponsored an amendment calling for the development of a plan to pull troops from Afghanistan. It was defeated largely as a result of Republican votes, but the measure was supported by 153 Democrats. All 10 members of the Massachusetts delegation backed the amendment.

House rules prevented amendments to yesterday’s bill, so McGovern was unable to bring the amendment up a second time and the vote was strictly over whether to extend war funding.

In this case, Lynch said, it would be unwise to halt the funding while troops are still fighting.

“I have serious concerns about Afghanistan,’’ he said after the vote. “But I think the president has a plan. The president is trying to get us out of there, and he’s trying to do it in a way that leaves stability there.’’

The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly nine years, but was largely overshadowed by the war in Iraq until recently. Last year, Obama decided to add 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and yesterday’s funding went partly to pay for them.

The $37 billion that was mostly for Afghanistan was part of a larger $59 billion bill that included money for the war in Iraq, as well as $2.8 billion for Haiti relief programs, $68 million for the oil disaster response on the Gulf Coast, and $13.4 billion for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

The Senate passed the measure last week, but eliminated more than $20 billion in programs that many Democrats had wanted to be included, primarily to protect teachers’ jobs. The bill now goes to Obama.

To view this article online, please click here.