"What this congress is doing against president Bush has no legal case what so ever."

In your dubya-sucking opinion.

There are are areas where impeaching dubya and head is built on solid supsicions.

The run-up to the bogus Iraq war, where NONE of the cherry-picked/hyped/fabricated "evidence" played out. head attacked Wilson for daring to doubt the what was the totally bogus yellow-cake affair. Libby's 4 perjuries (why did he perjure himself?) indicate he had plenty to hide (why not just tell the truth?), eg, head's evil hand in the slime-Wilson/out-Plame affair, which was part of head's plan to pre-empt and intimidate ALL attacks on his pre-war bull evidence.

The total lack of post-war planning by Rummy and his refusal to even let the subject be broached by his generals. Did dubya and head, agitating and intimidating for the war, have any post-invasion contingencies? no. incompetence in declaring and prosecuting a war are grounds for impeachment.

What did dubya/ head/Condi/Tenet have to hide about the pre-9/11 period? They stone-walled for months before agreeing to "co-operate" with the 9/11 commission, only after cir scribing their co-operation so much, eg chicken- dubya refused to testify alone, that the 9/11 commission couldn't really get at the WH role pre-9/11. Derelection of NatSec duty is grounds for impeachment.