The Illogic of Impeachment

Occasionally on this web log it has seemed necessary to be contradictory, even contrary. Such is the case this evening.

It has occured to me during the day that if one faces the facts as they are known, there is an illogic to the current efforts to impeach Cheney and Bush. The illogic is this. If we accept, as has been shown by prize-winning journalist Greg Palast and renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi that the ascension of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to power was illegitimate, then is not the impeachment of these two inappropriate? (The so-called re-election of 2004 can likewise be shown to be bogus.) In the strictest sense can someone who has not entered the office legitimately be then legitimately removed? Is not this the supreme irony of the current efforts toward impeachment? And is not this illogic a kind of protection for the impostors mentioned above? That is, for persons who care not a whit for the niceties of electoral law and procedure, it cannot be of any great concern that certain rabble rousers are putting forward the notion of impeachment.

At this point I may hasten to say that I whole-heartedly support impeachment if that is what will stop this heinous and hurtful renegade administration. Yet it is important to keep in mind the danger of pursuing a course of action which is based on a sour sense of history, that is, an incorrect reading of recent electoral history. Far better to come clean on the facts and through a process of a type of Truth and Reconciliation Commission, followed by proper Congressional vote, have the Bush Presidency cease to be. (The House of Representatives has the power to declare who is the legitimate President in such a situation.) This is the ideal. And being an unapologetic idealist, I am proud to present it here, regardless of the popular tide of the moment. I still believe truth has an intrinsic value and should be honored.