To tell you the truth I have a couple of grudges against Bush that could qualify him for impeachment - things he's done or failed to do in his sworn duty to the Presidency. The first two responsibilities of the federal government are to protect The People and to secure our borders. G.W. has abandoned the issue of border security in a wanton manner.
On the issue of protecting The People he's been a mixed bag. He did go after terrorists and threatening dictatorships but he has done virtually nothing to expel dangerous illegals at the cost of the lives of many citizens living inside our borders.
Those are the issues I would impeach G.W. on. But I've seen enough of Kicinich to know that these are not the issues that rankle him. You can see, then, that everyone has his own axe to grind against Bush. The same is true of all Presidents past and future. We just can't go around threatening every one of them with impeachment because we have a gripe.
You may be right that Kucinich's accusations amount to more than a gripe but I seriously doubt it. I will do my best to find his "Articles of Impeachment" and read them. A post will follow, I'm sure.

While I'm sure the congressman made a convincing case for impeachment against Bush I have to tell you that I won't be reading it. I've heard all the arguments made by Left wingers at the blogs. They're really not worth commenting on. The President is granted certain powers and no one can prove that he did not use them to the best of his ability - you can argue all you want over his lack of ability.
Have you considered the implications for future Presidents if we allow Bush to be dragged before the synod of the self-righteous Left for trying to do his duty>

Go Kuci!! If they're going to impeach Bill Clinton for a little sexual dalliance, then Bush ought surely be a candidate for it. But expecting congress to act in the nation's best interest on this is like expecting a jury of drinking drivers to convict a guy of DUI.

Out of his mind.