That would be great!
Regarding the 'WMD shit', although I'm glad that it's causing more mainstream people, mostly Dems looking for election fodder, to look at the Bush administration's actions, they're looking in the WRONG place, and seem to be missing the big picture.
In fact if I were a Karl Rove, I can't think of a better way to finally put to rest naysayers than to get them to focus on the defense that I wanted to present, at first feigning weakness, and then once they bite, show my hand.
Bush needs to be impeached not based on whether or not WMDs are found, but for a long history of lies, breaching international treaties (which according to our constitution are the supreme law of our land once entered into), condoning assassinations, threatening and then making an unauthorized first-strike attack on a sovereign nation, providing forged evidence to both the U.N. and the American public and on and on. This latest lashing out by Dems to further their elections makes me quite nervous because it greatly misses the point, and could give much needed legitimization of Bush's defense if WMDs are found.
Even if all the WMDs that Powell said Iraq possessed were true, it still doesn't amount to an imminent threat warranting a first-strike attack and invasion by the U.S. The WMD argument is merely the administrations best defense, a losing defense that could have its credibility enhanced and strengthened by those trying to prove it untrue.

Then again, I can't tell you how pleased I was to hear the 'I' word actually said on mainstream T.V. a couple days ago.

Visualize Impeachment

I agree with Bobby. The Administration desire to re-invade Iraq is well documented and predates the events of 9/11. See the book by Bob Woodward, "Bush at War", where Adminstration motives and tactics are laid out. (Woodward is a fan of Bush, generally.) The attack Iraq policy was pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and former defense advisory board chairman Richard Pearl (no doubt there are many others.) The WMD excuse and the much hinted-at 9/11 Iraq connection were just part of the sales package to the public. Wolfowitz recently let the cat out of the bag as reported in the Eurpoean press coverage of a conference held in Singapore:

From The Guardian, 6/4/03.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister (sic)said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Rallying against King George on July 4th would feel good, wouldn't it?

Did you know that most people don't consider what Bush did to be impeachable? Did you know that they think Bush got proper constitutional authority for the war from Congress? Just like they think Iraqis were behind 9/11 and that Bush and co. have actually found sufficient WMDs in Iraq to justify the War? Did you know that scientific opinion polls have revealed these mass mis-perceptions?

Would it be easier to agitate for impeachment, or to mobilize the vote against Bush in 2004?

Might it be better for California activists to wait until we know whether or not we'll be recalling our Governor in November?