lol.. Impeach President Bush under what charges? I rest my case..

I think mostly the real charges are "He's a bad, bad, ba-ad man' and 'BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD!', although I could be mistaken.

For the word ba-ad, pronounce as though bleating like a sheep.

If we were going to impeach Bush it should have been done 5 years ago when he first illegally invaded another sovern nation. And should have impeached the entire Congress for letting he do it. Too late now. The next President will have a huge job straightening that mess out.

Exactly what grounds are you using to declare it an illegal invasion? Please cite relevant laws.

Because there were no WMDs and no link to Osama Binladen and he knew that

Didn't you know? It's illegal in his house to invade any nation.

According to NPR, it was a pair of Italian ex-spies that forged the documents on the presence of WMDs. It is very possible that he had no knowledge of their forgery.

Yes that is correct. Its illegal (or against USA prior doctrins) for USA to invade any nation as first strike. Iraq did nothing to us, they were not the cause of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor either.

Regarding bolded section: Please provide proof (reference of actual law or statute) regarding true illegality. And please explain why 'prior doctrine' is being held up as equal to law:

You seem to be applying definition two here, but definition three would seem to make the most sense of the context you're using the word in. And in such a case, it's a matter of policy, not of law. Last I checked, policies can, and often do, shift.

Wrong. There is no such law.
And the US has repeatedly attacked other countries that took action against US interests.
- Panama
- Vietnam
- North Korea
- Germany (twice)
- Grenada
- Iraq (twice)
- Italy
- Serbia

None of them had invaded or attacked the US. German attacks on US shipping early in WW1 and WW2 were sanctioned under international law as that shipping was providing aid to an enemy of Germany and therefore fair game (in fact the very act of sending those shipments could be construed an act of war by the US against Germany, depending on interpretation of international law as it stood at the time)
and that's just the ones I can remember right away.

All US law states is that the president cannot initiate armed conflict with another nation unless in defense of US interests (which are rather broadly defined, including for example all of NATO) without first consulting with congress.
And that happened.

As to the current situation in Iraq, the US intervention there was in accordance with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement in which Iraq was obliged to give full cooperation to UN arms inspectors and all member nations had the obligation to ensure such cooperation was received.
When Iraq threw out the inspectorate in 1995 the US (and indeed any member nation capable) was obliged under their treaty obligations to use force to ensure inspections could resume.
The US (under Clinton) failed to meet their treaty obligations. It took the US 8 years until Bush finally got his act together and did the necessary, which turned out to be removing Saddam from power and installing a legitimate, democratically elected, government.