For me, the idea of war with Iran at this time is sufficient reason to impeach. It would be reason enough if none of the others you list so eloquently were in play.
For those who can't seem to grasp the concept that there is something wrong with killing mass numbers of Iranians for a threat that won't materialize for five to ten years, if at all, they should consider what such a war will do:
- A military force stretched to the breaking point will be stretched more. The United States may have had the strongest military force in the history of the world six years ago. Even that had finite limits; our military was used unwisely on top pf being overused.
- Iran has two and a half times the territory and people as Iraq;
- Iran is not Iraq and Ahmadinejad is not Saddam. They have elections in Iran which, while not altogether democratic, do give a sense of government at the consent of the governed. The Iranian economy is growing. Few Iranians, no matter how unhappy they are with Ahmadinejad, want to see there country invaded. There are more Iranians who feel that they have more to fight for than Iraqis. In short, while some Iraqis welcomed us a liberators for a day or two after Saddam fell, Bush will be hard pressed to find anybody in Iran throwing roses in the path of foreign invaders. It won't even be easy to find an Iranian to play the part of the quisling like Chalabi or Allawi.
Another reason related to Iran is simply one of the Bush Administration's credibility. They shot their wad on Iraq. Suppose I'm wrong (and it won't the first time) about this. Suppose Iran could have a nuke by Christmas and have every intention of using on us. Who would be foolish enough to Bush or Cheney or any other leading administration figure if he or she said so? They've cried "Wolf!" too often to be believed.
We need somebody in the White House who, no matter how much any of us may disagree with him or her, can still be believed when he tells us something very few of us really, really, really want to hear.