I was there primarily as a participant, and not as a blogger or anything, so unfortunately I wasn't taking notes or pictures. In hindsight, that would have been a good idea. So I'm going to try to give a narrative from the best I can remember. WCAX, WPTZ, The Free Press, the Argus, Peter Freyne, and VPT were among the press in attendance. I've got a lot of mixed feelings about how all parties involved in this behaved, so bear with me as I try to piece it together. It was very tense and hard to follow at times, so I'm not exactly brimming with detail. If you were there, please let us know your take in the comments. The meeting was opened by a few words from Palmer Legare, one of the activists arrested at Welch's a few weeks ago. He laid out the format, which I'll get to in a minute. The event then started off with an incredibly moving speech from Dottye Ricks of Graniteville, from the organization Military Families Speak Out. Her husband is one of the many who were injured in Iraq and came back a shadow of his former self, with the resulting problems that are all too well familiar now, in our fifth year of war. She was none too happy with the situation, and visibly quite frustrated with Welch, especially in light of the fact that she put a lot of time in volunteering on his campaign. She looked at him directly in the eye as she spoke, for the most part. Judy Sargent of Plainfield said a few words, and then Will Allen, a farmer from Thetford and the organization "Farms Not Arms" got up and spoke as well . Of all the activists who spoke, he seemed to be the most concise and well-composed, a very impressive guy and undoubtedly an asset to the movement. Legare then took to the podium to lay out the format of the forum (which Welch was not told of in advance). There was a big board with fifteen questions for Welch, each with three boxes next to them : yes, no, waffle. Some of the questions (if memory serves me correctly, and if those who were more certain have a correction, please let me know): Do you promise not to vote for any more money for the war? Will you submit legislation to call home the military contractors in Iraq? Will you introduce legislation banning the use of depleted uranium? There were also several questions involving Iran, the Moveon ad, investigations, and impeachment. The plan was for Welch to answer the questions directly, yes or no, after which he would be given ten minutes to say what he wanted, and then the floor would be open for questions. And then all hell broke loose. Welch wanted to speak before the questions, not after them, mentioning something about wanting to correct something that Legare said about him that he said was untrue. At that point, people started yelling. And yelling. Some people were quite adamant that Welch would adhere to the format. Others were yelling because they wanted to allow Welch to speak at that moment. So the next ten or fifteen minutes was consumed by lots of shouting. Everyone was shouting. People were shouting at Welch. At each other. Microphones were grabbed. It was pretty chaotic. Welch stood his ground, and I'm quite surprised he didn't just walk out of there, because it was quite hostile. You could tell he was very unnerved. Somehow, through the chaos, it was eventually agreed upon that Welch could speak before the questions. And so he began, with a lot of interruptions along the way. Welch wanted to clarify his voting history on Iraq. I don't have the specifics on what he said. He laid out his history on the votes on Iraq so far, and why he voted the way he did on them. Two things... he did clarify one point about something that I don't think many people know. Voting to allow a vote on something is not the same as voting for something. There was a particular vote that Welch voted to allow to the floor, only to vote against the actual measure itself. Some had misconstrued voting to allow a vote as a support of the bill itself. And absent from this was his mention of his vote on the recent funding bill for the government, which included money for the war (I couldn't stay till the end, a friend mentioned that this eventually did come up). Welch also mentioned the situation at hand, about simply not having the votes to override Bush at this point, especially in the Senate. That didn't go over too well with some in the audience. Then came the questions. More chaos. Welch was willing to answer the questions, but he wanted a chance to explain himself after each one. Once again, more anger in the room. Finally, he was allowed one or two minutes after each one to explain himself. Now, for the sake of this post not turning into a New York Times Sunday Magazine feature, I just want to go over a few things that stuck out. Some of the questions Welch answered quite directly, others in that particular politician-speak that none are too fond of. Some questions went away quickly, for he answered yes, and that was that. As far as the MoveOn.org question, I think Welch's reasoning was way off the mark. He is buying into the GOP frame that criticizing a highly politicized general is the same as criticizing the troops. Yes, technically a general is still a 'troop', but it's quite obvious that the ad wasn't attacking the troops. I wasn't happy with his impeachment answer, either, that the GOP would love it as a diversionary tactic and it would keep the congress from doing other important things. Walk and chew gum at the same time? And lastly, one of the questions was in regards to whether or not the U.S. should pay reparations to rebuild Iraq. He said no, we shouldn't pay reparations, we should pay to rebuild Iraq. A member of the audience then pointed out that the difference would be that repairing Iraq would more than likely involve more American companies making even more money, whereas reparations would enable the Iraqis to rebuild it their own way. But more importantly, reparations would be an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. The floor then opened up to questions. There were many questions, some about impeachment, the obligatory 9-11 conspiracy nutjob questions which really irked me, and a host of others. People just weren't really happy with Welch. He stuck around to the end. I certainly didn't envy him. But to address specifically the notion that Peter Welch isn't serious about ending the war, here's my take. I think he really believes that he is doing all he can to stop the war. The problem lies in that his comfort level is much lower than many Vermonters want it to be, and so many of us, myself included, don't believe he is doing all he can. Just listening to what people were saying... being arguably the most antiwar state in the union, many of us can't figure out why he isn't leading forcefully on this issue. People were asking him why he isn't marching with us in anti-war rallies, as anti-war pols who were serious used to back in the day. I'm baffled because he has nothing to lose from the voters and everything to gain by taking the lead. We are hungry for real leadership. Some speculate that he' s more concerned about moving up the congressional ladder than taking the lead on the war; that is also a possibility, I really don't know. So while I don't think he's supportive of the war and he really believes he's doing the best he can, I don't think he realizes how much more we expect from him. Maybe after this meeting he will. I was really put off by the lack of civility at the meeting, and I give Welch a lot of credit for standing his ground for three and a half hours in the midst of what was undoubtedly the most hostile crowd he's ever had to appear in front of. What also didn't sit well with me is that I really felt that certain people wanted this to be a public humiliation of Welch more than a conversation with him. I spoke with a friend who was also there afterwards about it, and he said, "Man, people are mad. They are sick of all of the dying. Children are dying, in our name. Why shouldn't they yell?" I have to say that I agree with my friend, to a point. I guess I probably have a problem with it moreso from a communications standpoint. I can't help but suspect that if the tone wasn't so confrontational from the get-go, that both Welch and the audience might have come to a greater understanding with each other. Regardless, democracy is not always pretty. I'd like to thank the organizers for making this happen and thank Mr. Welch for showing up and sticking it out. There's a war going on, and I'm not talking about the "war on terrah" or even Iraq. It's time for a real fight. We need it. The future of our nation depends on it. And if nothing else, I'd like to think that Peter Welch is going to be a little more aware of that the next time an Iraq vote comes up. It would be nice if he'd go beyond that and take the lead in that fight. UPDATED: WPTZ has a bit of video |
