"Maliki Suggests Bush Pushed To Extend U.S. Presence In Iraq To Help McCain"

According to Maliki:

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

If what Maliki claims is true, would that not be more than solid grounds to impeach and swiftly remove the POTUS?

If conducting an active military conflict as some side show to win an election is not high crimes and misdemeanor , then I don't know what is. The allegation, if true, would be one of the most serious breaches of duty of any POTUS, far worse than Watergate or Fellatio-Gate along with Clinton's alleged "Wag the Dog" .

Considering all there are other countries that might "need" bombed too or countries that are emboldened by the USA's perceived double talk on promoting democracy and the stretched military, I don't see a sound reason for US troops to stay in Iraq longer than the Iraqi government wants the troops there.
There may be other threats that may need to be dealt with swiftly in the future, such as North Korea and tying up US troops in Iraq, even for "just" another year is a dangerous gamble. Having a big stick isn't much of a deterrent if that stick is allocated to a country that wishes to protect itself.

Would Bush really want to win an election rather than Support Our Troops?