Which did congress demand more proof of before acting, starting war in Iraq or impeaching Bush?

[yurbud]

Doesn't it seem odd that Congress snapped into action based on the flimsiest of evidence against Saddam Hussein, and against common sense and the grudging confession of George Tenet that Saddam would be unlikely to use WMD against us unless he was about to be killed or removed from power, an observation anyone old enough to remember the Cold War should have concluded on their own since the Soviet Union, who had MORE nukes than us stayed their hand, knowing we would have the ability to retaliate and burn them off the map no matter how successful a first strike on us was.

The connection to al Qaeda was even more tenuous than the WMD threat, boiling down to one meeting in Prague and one guy getting medical treatment in Iraq. There was far more of that kind of evidence and more substantive evidence as well against Saudi Arabia, and even the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 acknowledged this.

We controlled the airspace over Iraq, so Saddam couldn't launch an airplane without our permission, and if, in a moment of insanity, he launched a missile at a neighbor, our retaliation would literally have been a matter of one of our pilots hitting a switch, dropping a bomb, and letting gravity take care of the rest. Iraqis would die before their missile had left their airspace.

All of this, a person old enough to serve in Congress should have known.

Contrast this to the case against Bush.

As Vincent Bugliosi pointed out, Bush had an NIE on Iraq before he started to sell the war that said he would not use WMD on us even if he had them. He had no other source of reliable information.

Bush admitted publicly to violating FISA after lying to the public about not doing so.

Bush's vice president and his top aide Karl Rove outed a covert CIA agent, an action Bush's own father signed into law as a felony. While Bush's own involvement may be in doubt, his cover up and foot-dragging on this issue alone equals Nixon's Watergate sins.

Bush recently admitted to approving of White House meetings where torture was planned in minute detail, violating not just the Geneva Convention, but American law.

Those four are slam dunk impeachable offenses with the evidence already a matter of public record.

And yet Congress looks the other way.

If Bush raped, killed, and ate children on the White House lawn, Congress would probably say any discussion of it was a ''distraction.''

Is it just me, or has Congress accepted the flimsiest of evidence to start wars but no amount of evidence will move them to impeach Bush & Cheney?

[yurbud]

1. I expected at least some pro-capitulation DLCers to respond to this.