Don't we have the right, no, obligation, to impeach Bush now?

If the analysis of what happened yesterday with Rove was that he admitted to the FBI that he & the White House lied to the press and public in order to ensure a win for George Bush in 2004, isn't that an impeachable offense?

Why aren't our senators and legislatures moving on this information?

I see I've been avoiding the Rove thing too much. What'd he say, what'd he say??

Edit: sorry, I found it!! Reading....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1424251

Analysis: Telling FBI the truth saved Rove
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 13, 2:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public.

In 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame's CIA identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.

It's now known that Rove had discussed Plame's CIA employment with conservative columnist Robert Novak, who exposed her identity less than a week later, citing two unidentified senior administration officials.

Rove's truth-telling to the FBI saved him from indictment.

And by misleading reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove... ;_ylt=AuRBIjRIoWOPXNN_YUuL0gKyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

It does seem to shine a whole new garish light on things, doesn't it? I asked on the other thread: if this is true, then why is Libby the one Fitz has focused on? Didn't Rove hand him the evidence to bust him when he told the FBI that he was the one who had spoken to Novak about Plame?

I don't get it. But then, I'm not criminally-(or legally-)minded.