"A Promise Made, A Promise Delivered"

Well, not too surprised that we missed an interesting little article over at the Vermont Guardian from a few days ago, considering that the old Guardian is usually a bit, how should this be put diplomatically, "centristly challenged," but they have a heckuvan article on what's going on with Vermont's anti-war firebrand Peter Welch, especially how his lawyerly head is dealing with a pretty big conundrum these days: it's the war, stupid.

Less surprising than WW's oversight, however, was what seemed to be a distinctly shivery and cold feeling that comes across in the article, which can be found here. Dude, the Guardian is, as mentioned, a pretty reliable haunt of those most blue-blooded Vermonters; Progressives, anti-war activists, church-street regulars, UVM professors, etc. Why the brush off for Welchie then? Maybe its starting to look like his tough talk about getting troops home by the end of 2006, or at least forming "an aggressive plan for doing so," are not so easy to live up to when you get out of Montpelier and down to Washington. Even with a fully Democratically controlled Congress. Even when Welch sits on two of the most powerful committee's in Washington. Even when US support for the war is at an all-time low.

Instead, in the VG article "Welch acknowledged that despite the large number of US voters who swept Democrats into power based on their disapproval of the Iraq war, Bush still holds the upper hand when it comes to setting troop levels and setting war policy." What, what what!? What happened to the claims made, throughout the sweet summer months, that we need to stop the "rubber stamp" Congress? Welch goes on to say that "the President is the Commander in Chief. He has the cards. We in Congress must do our best we (sic) to persuade him to change the direction in Iraq (author's note: "change the direction?" does that sound familiar?) Can the President do it even if it's wrong? He probably can." Said Welch.

Now, call us out if we're wrong, but this seems to be developing into what they call in Sheffield "a load of bull-crap." As in, it simply ain't true. Welch sits on two committees, one of which must approve each bill that comes through for it to get to a vote. Read: the Democrats CAN end this war as soon as they would like to. There is actually a faction who wants to do this. Welch is not in this faction.

He either a) does not have the influence to "persuade (Bush) to change the direction" (wait, wouldn't that be "standing up to Bush?") or b) he is not willing to introduce or co-sponsor the legislation that would "end the war now." Legislation which would end all funding for the war except for troop withdrawal is not new, but Welch has not indicated that he would sign onto it. Repeat: Welch will not do this, which is exactly what he said he would do when he was courting your vote last summer. I'll say it again: Welch will NOT DO what he said he would do. Heck, he knows it. Maybe Welch should start reading the blogs, like this one by Dennis Kucinich. Its all there in black and white.

In our opinion, this should make people pretty mad. Bernie would have pulled the plug, right? My prediction: no one will notice, or even care. Why? Well, we all know that you can trust a personal injury attorney, why pay attention to what he is actually doing? Hey, times are tough all over.

Not tough enough, though, for Welch to claim that he is living up to his promises on the campaign while dodging the cannonball for his goose-egg on the war. The Totten article, please note, does end with Welch pointing out that the Dem controlled Congress is acting on a whole host of other issues in the much vaunted "100 hours" plan. " Stem cell research, school funding, and a few others will all get some attention. "They were really campaign promises, and a promise made, a promise delivered" says Welch.

We have our doubts.