Shocking News: Democrats put party over principle

Jeremy Scahill has been doing a great job covering the sell-out of self-proclaimed "anti-war" Democrats this week in granting President Obama more than $100 billion to continue his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- wars these same progressive lawmakers claim to oppose. As Scahill notes, 20 Democrats who opposed the war supplementals when President Bush was in office -- and initially opposed Obama's request -- chose to join "the responsible left" in backing the funds not because they had suddenly embraced America's imperial projects overseas, but for the strictly partisan reason that the current president is a Democrat.

Indeed, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told The Hill, she believes "my president is a peacemaker," despite his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and increasing reliance on Predator drone attacks in Pakistan. Accordingly, "I'm going to give him what he wants."

Noticeably absent from Schakowsy's remarks is any attempt to defend the substance of what she was voting for. Instead, it's all about faith in Hope and Change, which Scahill rightly characterizes as the same "Dear Leader knows best" mentality progressives once criticized when exhibited by their conservative counterparts.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) is another progressive Democrat who backed Obama's funding request for wars to which the lawmaker is ostensibly opposed. Earlier today I asked his office if he still opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if so, "how does he reconcile voting to fund them, something he did not do back when the president was a Republican?"

In response, I was given this June 16th statement from the congressman:

“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. 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, I am very concerned about escalating U.S. military forces elsewhere in the region and I have been vocal in expressing my fear that Afghanistan could become another quagmire. We must not let that happen.”

Again, what you'll see lacking in the above statement is any defense of the substance of bill in question. While McDermott's fear that "Afghanistan could become another quagmire" is well taken, it's not clear how voting for the money that is enabling an escalation of that war in any way prevents that from occurring. McDermott's entire argument for violating his stated opposition to the wars is that the president "needs" and "deserves" his support, though he never gets around to explaining why exactly that is or why those considerations trump the lives of the innocent civilians who will undoubtedly be killed thanks to Obama's well-funded but ill-considered imperial adventures.

McDermott has opposed war funding bills in the past, in 2007 quoting George McGovern on the House floor, saying "if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us." I also noted his vocal opposition to any war with Iran in a piece last year for Inter Press Service, so it's a shame he chose to sacrifice principle for partisanship this time on such a life-and-death matter as war.

But McDermott was not alone. Courtesy of Scahill, here are the rest of the "anti-war" Democrats who voted to fund Obama's wars:

Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner.

In which I attempt campaign coverage...

I'm not one for horse race coverage of the Democratic presidential race, but for those keeping track at home, Barack Obama picked up support from another superdelegate today: Jim McDermott, a congressman from Seattle, Washington.

McDermott, a vocal opponent of the Iraq war and a member of the House Progressive Caucus, announced his decision in a press release I just received a few moments ago:

“I am proud to endorse Barack Obama today, because I believe he will bring us together to achieve the kind of change we need in this country moving forward. As Democrats, we are fortunate to have two very talented public servants running to be the nominee of our party, and I have great respect for Senator Clinton. But I believe now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can be in the strongest place possible to win in November. Barack Obama has chosen to spend his career speaking out for those who need a voice and reaching across the aisle to bring change that matters in the lives of working families. I am confident that as president, Barack Obama will end the war in Iraq and bring our sons and daughters home, he will make universal health care a reality and he will restore our moral standing in the world. Barack Obama won the race in my home state by an overwhelming margin and I am thankful that so many new voters have become engaged because of the kind of campaign he has run, and I am happy to support him today.”

I don't think there was ever really any question as to who McDermott preferred in this race. As a strong critic of the attempt to demonize Iran and launch another preemptive war, one would have a hard time imagining him endorsing Hillary Clinton, who not only voted to have Iran's Revolutionary Guard listed as a "terrorist organization", but recently threatened that if Iran attacked Israel (the chances of that happening, it should be pointed out, is exactly "nil") she would "totally obliterate" the former and, presumably, its population of 70 million people. Not that Barack "all options on the table" Obama is a much better choice when it comes to foreign policy, but certainly, considering the options...

That said, as with John Edwards' endorsement of Obama yesterday, the only real question is: what was the wait all about?