[oceanview]

if you believe Bush broke the law, then you are de-facto arguing for impeachment. if you believe that "US persons" dialing/receiving calls from certain foreign phone numbers linked to AQ merit warrants that were not obtained - then its no different then learning that Bush used wiretaps on purely domestic communications without warrants. the crime of failing to obtain warrants would be the same in both cases (different statutes aside). so if we found out tomorrow (hypthetically) that Bush had ordered FBI wiretaps without warrants on Ronnie Earle's calls to the DNC, would that be an impeachable offense?

[ndt]

if you believe Bush broke the law, then you are de-facto arguing for impeachment.

Totally untrue, congress has the discretion to ignore it or even OK the behavior after the fact by changing the law. Impeachment is an option, not a requirement.

if you believe that "US persons" dialing/receiving calls from certain foreign phone numbers linked to AQ merit warrants that were not obtained - then its no different then learning that Bush used wiretaps on purely domestic communications without warrants."

As the law is, there is no difference whether one party or both parties are U.S. Persons. Both conversations would require a warrant.

"so if we found out tomorrow (hypthetically) that Bush had ordered FBI wiretaps without warrants on Ronnie Earle's calls to the DNC, would that be an impeachable offense?"

Absolutely, and being a case of purely political wiretapping, I would fully support an impeachment and even criminal prosecution in that specific hypothetical. Please tell me that you do not support unlimited wiretapping powers for political gain.