I would suggest that a comparison with an impeachment proceeding against a sitting President of the United States is a different matter because under U.S. law we have substantial legal checks and balances (oftentimes too many, but that's a subject for another thread). As an example, in the Clinton impeachment there was clear violation of the law as well as substantial legal precedent. Even given that, we were able to get him impeached (and disbarred) but we still weren't able to kick the bum out. In the case of President Bush, there has been no violation of any U.S. law, so they don't even get to square one with an imeachment proceeding. Kofi "embarrassment to humanity" Annan has accused the US of waging an 'illegal' war in Iraq, but he seems to forget the UN Resolution 1441. There's no US legal violation because Congress authorized the President to go to war. This is something that might employ a few Leftist lawyers for a while and provide Al Franken with a few talking points but I think that in reality it's a non-starter as a practical matter.
practically, you make sense. But since the TLA (trial lawyer association) was birthed from the draft dodgers of the Carter pardon....I've no idea what they are working on.