Speaker Symington, finally showing the wisdom to get out of the way of the people that the Governor found at his town meeting, has relented and will permit a floor vote on a House impeachment resolution tomorrow, though she intends to vote against it.

Wonderful. And I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course, there was no “gift” here. This was the result of hard work. So I’d like to make a few more points before we let the chips fall where they may.

In her statement on the subject, Symington explained her position on the Legislature’s earlier vote calling for an immediate withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq:

Despite my general reluctance to debate national issues in the Legislature, I supported this debate and the outcome. I am proud that Vermont was the first state to take such a strong stance against the war.

And it was a strong stance against the war occupation. Very strong. So strong, in fact, that it represents a position considerably more aggressive than that taken by the United States Congress itself. Still, it seemed, at the time, necessary and appropriate for the Vermont Legislature to advise them as to the best means of redressing the harm and injustice this administration has brought to our nation and the havoc it has caused beyond our borders. Didn’t it?

Those are exactly my words, though. Those are Speaker Symington’s words. But not about the troop withdrawal legislation. Save for one word, “advise,” those are the words Symington used in her most recent statement to oppose the impeachment resolution. Except in that statement, it was “second guessing,” not “advising.” I guess it’s all in how you look at it.

The Speaker quite correctly points out the fantastic job that the Democratic Congress has done in opening investigations into this “administration’s” conduct, and naturally, the praise for the leadership shown in that regard by the Members of Vermont’s Congressional delegation is both effusive and well-deserved. Nobody’s been more pleased with the robust pursuit of oversight than I have. But I also look ahead and ask to what end are we conducting this oversight?

So far, we have only the vaguest indications that the Members of Vermont’s delegation are considering where this path leads, though I can’t blame them for being cautious about it:

In a joint statement issued late Friday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-VT, said, “Currently, for the first time since Pres. Bush has been in office, there are a number of investigations taking place regarding the actions of the Bush administration, including how and why we invaded Iraq, no-bid contracts, the firing of U.S. attorneys by the attorney general, the assault on constitutional rights and the use of Republican Party e-mails in the White House. Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.”

These investigations will be followed wherever the facts lead.

Which is a good thing, right? Of course it is. On the other hand, it’s also one of the minimum basic requirements of oversight. You follow the facts where they lead. Anything other than that just isn’t oversight. So, that’s about as non-committal a statement as you can possibly make about an investigation that implicates the “administration” in the above-recited litany, don’t you think?

The fact of the matter is that the activities being probed as clearly indicate the need to consider the remedy of impeachment as anything the Congress could ever hope to investigate. Everyone knows it, but few (though a growing number) are willing to acknowledge it. In one of the great ironies of our time, it is the fate of those who see around the corner to endure the slings and arrows of those who would cling to the label of “realists” even as they persist in denying that fact. Worse things have happened, of course. It does us no good to dwell on that.

The Speaker then continued:

Impeachment may be needed where checks and balances fail. That is not the case now, and instead of choosing that disruptive and divisive option, we should support the legislative branch of our government as its members work to hold the executive branch accountable for their misguided policies and mismanagement. We should not short circuit that process of accountability.

Here, it’s particularly hard to agree. Where are the successes of our system of checks and balances? We certainly saw none under the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress, but we knew we never would. And while we can hold out hope that oversight and investigations conducted by Congressional Democrats can be of help, anyone who’s been even casually following along can see plainly that the White House has no intention whatsoever of complying with Congressional inquiries. And why would they? After all, the oversight power of Congress is ultimately backed by the threat of the one thing that Speaker Symington has worked so hard to suppress. And if the opposition party won’t even discuss it, what worry has the White House in tempting fate?

The day will come — and it will come sooner rather than later — when Chairman Leahy and his colleagues have had enough of White House stonewalling. Some of you who know him better than I do would say that day has already arrived. But with what weapons do you expect your Senator to enforce compliance from a recalcitrant and bunkered George W. Bush? The arsenal is limited, and purposefully so. But there’s no getting around it: the ultimate leverage the Congress has against the executive is impeachment, and there’s absolutely nothing in the world Speaker Symington can do or say to change that fact. The only thing she can do is contribute to a political strategy that would render it irrelevant, and in so doing, render the Congress irrelevant as well.

Indeed, as the Vermont delegation said, “it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.”

When we come to the end of that trail of facts, will Gaye Symington and Vermont’s Democrats have offered their support for what comes next? Or will they have established a narrative — impeachment as “disruptive and divisive” — for the White House’s apologists to seize as their own?