Blurt | Solid State | Omnivore | Mistress Maeve | Freyne Land

Seven Days Blogs: Freyne Land

« Watching & waiting... | Main | Face Behind the Canvas »

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Damn Hippies!

Boots_busted C'mon. Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch says he opposes the War in Iraq. Over and over he says it. He said it again as recently as Friday at the Sheraton.

But a bunch of old Vermont hippies take exception to the fact Rep. Welch keeps voting for the war-funding bills that keep it chugging along. They were there in March, too. The late, great Grace Paley of Thetford was with them.

And they don't like a few other Iraq War-related votes cast by Ol'  Welchie.

Picky. picky.

That's Boots Wardinski, 64, a Newbury farmer and former Marine, being escorted out of Congressman Welch's Main Street Burlington office after closing on Monday.

Can't they just ignore the Iraq War like good citizens and wait until a new president moves into the White House in 2009?

No, they can't.

Thank god.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Damn Hippies!:



Hasn't Welch said that he won't vote to approve more funding?


How much more money do we need to flush down this toilet of a country? Enough is enough.


yes, Feyne quoted Welch as saying we need to use the purse and I'm (welch) is willing to do that. Yet he has yet to vote no a spending bill, any spending bill for that matter. So besides funding the war, Welch has no trouble increasing spending period. Can't wait for taxes to go up some more. What is surprising to me is that people still expect him to stick to his word. He is opposed to the war, yet hasn't done anything to stop it. He is opposed to funding the war and yet keeps voting yes, interestingly last time he was bought off by some money for farmers, wow that's integrity, selling the lives of soldiers for some milk money), he is all for holding Bush accountable, yet won't support impeachment. I mean if you can't figure out that this guy is liar yet then you shouldn't be participating in the election process because you are too stupid to make an informed decision. Welch, got in by playing the people on the Iraq War issue and hasn't even lived up to that single promise.


Nobody wastes more money and is more addicted to pork than the national GOP. That is fact.

Carol M

Is it true that Welch has voted for funding for Iraq other than whatever it takes to get the troops safely deployed home? Please don't just say "Yes, it's true." Include links showing justification for your statements. I have corresponded with Welch about this issue. If it is true that he has broken his pledge, he'll hear from me again in no uncertain terms. But I would like to confront him with facts.




Here is a link to Welches voting record. You will notice he has never voted no for any spending bill including those to fund Iraq. You will also notice he voted for designating Iran a terrorist group giving justification for a military strike.

This link is and interesting editorial about Peter and his voting lately. Apparently he voted for the last supplemetal bill because it was only for 30 days so it doesn't count towards his no vote pledge.

Sanders apparently left Welch the playbook on how to dupe the people of VT into thinking you care about them and their opinion while still voting however you please.


No, actually getting religious huckleberries to piss away their economic interests by pandering to their bigotries, that's pure Karl Rove and the Far right hucksters your so fond of.

John Burgess

Each time I read an attack piece about Peter W. I wonder if the writer has considered what Gen. Rainville would have done had she been elected. Each time I read criticism that Peter voted to fund the troops, I wonder how any sane person can suggest that the way to end the war is to leave our men and women in this blood bath under funded and under supplied. Each time I read that Peter should have voted to impeach Bush, I wonder what planet the writer lives on. Whether or not Bush deserves to be impeached, the votes do not exist to get an impeachment conviction in the Senate. I would much rather have a right thinking Representative who faces the reality of the world as it is, rather than a member of Congress who tilts with unreal windmills.
John Burgess

paul poirier

I know Peter and I trust his judgemeny, as a matter of fact I propably know him politically better than most as I was the House Majority leader while Peter was the Senate leader in the 80,s and I defeated him in the democratic primary for congress in 1988.
Peter has received some excellent committee assignments and thus is expected to support the Pelosi agenda. I believe that Peter is in a position to win recognition within the democratic caucus and be a strong voice among the 80 to 90 first and second termers who went to Washington to end American entanglement in other countries problems. We should be supporting the principle of self determination rather than nation building. One can be like Bernie, a voice in the night or a voice for future leadership, l for one will buy some time with Peter.


Hear, hear to Messrs. Burgess and Poirier.


Thanks Burgess and Poirier, but it's not good enough to say that there aren't enough votes to support impeachment. Sure, it's a reality, but to not hold the president accountable is just wrong on its face. You think Hillary will tow the line just because she's a Democrat, or be drunk with power knowing that anything she does won't have consequences? Our government just gets further and further from any semblance of representing people. It's a complete joke and just because Welch has plum assignments means absolutely nothing while people continue to die. There's blood on his hands as well no matter how much he stands up and whines. No, there's not much difference between Welch and Rainville. We would have Rainville who wouldn't vote our way. Instead we have Welch who says nothing can be done because there aren't enough votes. He might as well stay home.


John Burgess wrote

> whether or not Bush deserves to be impeached, the votes do not exist to get an impeachment conviction in the Senate.

And this is where anti-impeachers have it backwards. Go talk to former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman of New York. She was the one who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate impeachment hearings. Back then members of Congress (and the media) doubted that Nixon would be brought up on charges of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee didn't stop to ask whether or not they could really succeed; they just stood up against Nixon's blatant and obvious abuses of power because there were no other alternatives and look what happened, they succeeded. The House Judiciary Committee REALLY didn't know what the evidence was going to show, or that Nixon would resign; they only knew that preserving our system of checks and balances required a thorough investigation of his abuses of power, win or lose.

Go back and read your American history books and you'll find that the heroes in our nation's history never calculated the odds. They just did what was right. Who's to say that Congress won't turn on Bush & Cheney, especially when so many people all over America have been begging for investigations into impeachment? If efforts fail, so what. I want a Congress that will fight and fight for the preservation of our system of government. The next president will occupy the White House more powerful than ever as a result of all the changes Bush & Cheney enacted into law. How can that not concern you and why would we let that pass? Because we "supposedly" don't have the votes? Come on! If the effort to remove Bush & Cheney really does not succeed, at least we will not be found wanting to try. And so the point of my rant is to tell Mr. Burgess that like the majority of Democrats in Congress, your idea of impeachment is all backwards. The GOP really did a number on a sacred tool our Founding Fathers gave us after deposing their own king. And so instead of sullying the GOP for misusing and abusing that privelege, the Dems choose to sully the impeachment process itself. Mr. Burgess is perpetuating this misinformation and it's time to unlearn our assumptiond we all make of impeachment.

As for Paul Poirier, I (and many others) do not expect Peter Welch to adopt the Pelosi agenda. While he's certainly done some fine work in Washington, we also expect him to represent what Vermonters want (no more funding for the war and a stand on impeachment) and if he doesn't want to jeopardize his standing with Pelosi then why is he representing Vermont? Why does he put party ahead of his constituents? Who does he think he's accountable too? So he may have some great assignments on some key committees we send our leaders to Washington not to ass kiss but to raise hell. Accomodation gets you no where. Fighting the powers that be gets you places.


Here we go again from Brattleman.

"Go back and read your American history . . ."

He's smarter than the rest of us on American history.

". . . we also expect him to represent what Vermonters want (no more funding for the war and a stand on impeachment). . ."

For months he's been presuming to speak for what all Vermonters want. He doesn't speak for Vermont and he doesn't speak for me.


The House Judiciary Committee didn't stop to ask whether or not they could really succeed; they just stood up against Nixon's blatant and obvious abuses of power because there were no other alternatives and look what happened, they succeeded.

Actually, in the Nixon case, there was a great hue and cry about how pointless, unsuccessful, and distracting impeachment would be. But the day after Erlichman and Haldeman were tossed overboard after the first hint of Watergate was exposed (they were Nixon's co-conspirators for the break-in to Democratic Commitee office in the Watergate building - an act of spying that was so minor relative to what Bush has done with his repeated FISA violations that it seems hardly worth mentioning now - yet it was more than enough to lead to Nixon's eventual downfall), Congressman John E. Moss insisted on a committee to investigate impeachment. From Moss' obituary:

"When Moss unloaded his bombshell, he encountered only howls of derision. Most Republicans still were loyal defenders of Nixon. Most Democrats preferred a more gradual strategy to weaken the president without seeming to stage a frontal assault. They thought impeachment politically unwise and too wrenching an experience for the country.

"Talk about impeachment is nonsense," said Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif. Added Democrat John Tunney, California's junior senator: "We should not be talking about impeachment." House Speaker Carl Albert curtly brushed aside the proposal.

We've been hearing warmed over versions of those same lame excuses for years now. This administration is so much further out of control than Nixon's ever was. If only there were a John Moss in the current Congress...

Moss not only provided a great leadership on the issue of an out-of-control President, he showed how to REALLY oppose an unjust and futile war:

When most lawmakers still gave unqualified support to the Vietnam War, Moss drove Lyndon Johnson up the wall by traveling to Southeast Asia and meticulously exposing the corruption and futility of U.S. nation-building assistance for a Saigon regime that would never meet democratic standards.


I'm not intimidated by your snarky comments "Walter." It's obvious you're set in your ways and I'll say that you're quite closeminded and immature. That's not something I would expect from a DRM director. Wow.

As for the rest of you, I welcome to have an honest and engaging discussion about impeachment and how to restore its integrity in American politics.


Brattleboy, people don't agree with your sophomoric and insulting and inflammatory ravings about impeachment. No matter how much you tell us we're wrong. No matter how much you "order" us to talk to former Congressman Holtzman. No matter how much you "order" us to read our American history books. No matter how much you tell us our ideas are "backwards." No matter how much you accuse the Dems of sullying things. No matter how much you accuse Mr. Burgess of "perpetating misinformation." No matter how much you presumptuously claim to speak for Vermonters. You're not smarter, wiser, or morally superior to the rest of us. Quite the contrary.

The fact that you would respond that you aren't "intimidated" by a critical blog posting reveals your self-doubt.

The fact that you are so frustrated that you resort to attempted outing reveals your immaturity.

The fact that you once again, as always, appeal to the larger group for validation reveals your insecurity.

I have been very patient with your irresponsible method of responding to criticism by attempting to out me, but enough is enough and I will be revealing your identity.


Nobody cares who you people are.


Whatever Vermonter. You're reading WAY to into me.

I've been waiting to have a civilized discussion and instead all of us here get snarky commons from you that have nothing to do with substance. If you disagree with impeachment, fine. But back it up with intelligent substantive comments. If you feel so strongly about impeachment pick apart my arguements with logical conclusions not drivel. You've taken way too many discussions on Frenye Land down to a LCD level and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Get real and argue intelligently. PLEASE for the sake of these readers!


BTW, Vermonter I didn't out you. Freyne did.


Whatever you say, Christian.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All Rights Reserved © SEVEN DAYS 1995-2008 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802.864.5684