vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

2.13.2007

Peter's perch

The U.S. House debate on the non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge for Irag was barely underway when freshman Congressman Peter Welch, D-Vt., got in his two-cents (actually his two and a half minutes) on the floor of the House'

Thanks to his exalted position as a member of the Rules Committee that set the terms for the three-day debate, Welch was at the podium just a half hour into the proceedings. He was, if anyone's counting, the seventh member of Congress to speak, the fourth Democrat and the first member of the 42-member Class of 2006.

The speech itself was short, necessarily so, potent and to the point. His best line was, take your pick, either "No more troops. No more phony intelligence. No more blank checks. We must end this war," or "America must change the direction of this war. If the President won't, we will."

For a view of the text of Welch's remarks, click HERE. Or, take a gander at Monday night's meeting of the House Rules Committee, where Welch made many of the same points while endeavoring to persuade the panel to back an up-or-down only vote on the resolution.

Who says Welch is still wishy-washy on the war?

-- Sam Hemingway

posted by vt.Buzz | 1:26 PM |

Comments:

This resolution is absolutely meaningless and will not bring the end of the war one day closer.

Yet Welch and other members of Congress will beat their chests and say how wonderful they are because they voted to disapprove Bush's policy.

Ending the war requires either cutting off the funds for the escalation or, if that fails, Congress' seriously considering its constitutional authority to impeach the President and the Vice President.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:08 PM, February 13, 2007

The above post was written by a plagiarist who has been fired from every political job he’s ever had.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:51 PM, February 13, 2007

Show some spine and cut off funding!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:14 PM, February 13, 2007

The first and third posts are exactly right. Stop wasting our time and trying to impress people. Do something that counts. Cut off funding or shut up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:31 PM, February 13, 2007

I disagree. I think it's important for Congress to debate and vote on whether or not they support the President's escalation policy, especially if they can muster bi-partisan support. Cutting off funding for the war is extremely drastic. While I think he's dangerously wrong on so many things, Bush is still the commander in chief and using the purse strings to choke off that authority should be the very last option.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:46 PM, February 13, 2007

That's not Congress's job. They are not paid $130,000 a year to tell the president what they think. They're in Washington to pass laws and decide how our money should be spent. If they believe as strongly as they claim to that this is a really bad move for our country, then why don't they prevent it from happening? Something they can do. I don't want my delegation to talk; I want them to act.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:30 PM, February 13, 2007

Interesting dichotomy between the posts on this thread and this one:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/blog/politics/2007/02/different-voices-same-melody.html

I'll leave comments on the editorial content of the two posts to different commentators...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:23 PM, February 13, 2007

Welch has been clear and strong on the war from day one of his campaign. It was Martha and her merry and incompetent band of followers who could not articulate a clear stand on the war or even the environment. What would Martha do? Oh yeah, support the surge, the failed policies of the President and send more troops into battle unprepared.
These are the first steps to reeling in an out of control President.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:09 PM, February 13, 2007