That's the conclusion of the Daily Kos, if we don't find WMD in Iraq within six months.

Bush has six months to find the WMDs that spurred this war. Six months to find the hundreds of tons of chemical weapons that posed an imminent threat to our nation and Iraq's neighbors.

If in six months no such weapons are found, then start impeachment proceedings.

Good to see some people are thinking long-term.

The argument is ridiculous of course. DK says this:

We invaded Iraq SOLELY on the basis of its supposed WMD program.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but: No.

There was no single reason why we used force against Iraq, and it would be simple-minded to suggest so. Critics of the war liked to point to supposedly shifting rationales. Is it conceivable to them that motivations for a war can be a complex combination of motivations?

The trigger, no doubt, was Iraq's noncompliance in accounting for weapons they themselves admitted having at the end of the Gulf War. If they didn't have WMD, why did they stonewall for 12 years?

All they had to do was produce confirmable evidence of the destruction of illicit weapons, or the weapons themselves. This was the mandate of the international community, standing and flouted for over twelve years. Why?

I have faith that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and most likely pieces of a nuclear program in its infancy. This supposition is based on reading about the history of this regime, Hussein's Ba'athist pan-Arabist dreams, his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, two comprehensive nuclear weapons programs discovered after-the-fact, and yes, their behavior over the past twelve years. This is all circumstantial evidence, but it is extremely strong. From what I've read of Hussein's former regime, I find it hard to believe that he would:

--Eradicate all illicit weapons and weapon programs
--Then block all efforts to verify this eradication

The two just don't go together. So I'm confident, unlike so many in the blogosphere who seem to be hedging their bets, that we will find lots of illicit weapons.

But let's revisit my warrant analogy for a second. The police have some information that a man is cooking up some sort of illegal poison in his basement. The man has actually poisoned and killed people in the neighborhood, but has not been charged or convicted of those murders.

The police get a warrant. They knock on the man's door, but he doesn't let them in the house. He tells them they can search the front yard and the porch, then slams the door. Let's say the police get another warrant. And another. Hell, let's say they get 17 warrants in all.

Now, whether or not the poison actually exists in the man's basement, are the police justified in forcibly entering the man's home?

Please, for the love of Pete, don't start pointing out how the analogy doesn't map all that well to Iraq. Just try to honestly answer the question. Is the actual existence of contraband necessary to justify the use of force?

Now, this argument will become somewhat moot as we begin to find illicit weaponry. But it illustrates the justifying principles involved. If a despot has agreed to dispose of illicit weapons, but refuses to allow independent confirmation of this disposal repeatedly, over long periods of time, should the world simply assume he's telling the truth and go about their business? Continue searching the front yard? Or kick in the door?