I hate it when people do this, but I'm doing it, too

[ripple]

I don't like to post links to non-friendly sites, but I would really appreciate some help debunking this stuff that keeps showing up on a local site I visit.

http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com

Any help would be appreciated: hi:

[RagingInMiami]

1. That doesn't need debunking

Cause who's going to listen to that guy anyway? It's gotta be a joke, right?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RagingInMiami]

6. With a lot of time on his hands

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

2. What a hoot

Just another "Clinton killed Jesus and plunged mankind into the abyss" lunatic.

Bottom line, Clinton did not take the U.S. to war under false pretenses, Clinton did not fail to anticipate a prolonged insurgence, Clinton did not follow a doctrine of neoconservatism advocating American imperialism with emphasis on control of the middle east, Clinton did not kill 2000 Americans soldiers, and Clinton did not sit with kindergartners reading 'My Pet Goat' while the U.S. was under attack.

The list could go on. Retroactive impeachment, the author of the site should get a retroactive abortion.

[sepia_steel]

5. touche! eom

[loudsue]

7. LOL! Love it!

the author of the site should get a retroactive abortion.

:applause: :woohoo: :rofl: :applause:

[mestup]

4. I don't know if it's worth your energy.

"Morgan, this crop stuff...it's about a bunch of nerds who never had a girlfriend in their lives. They're, like, thirty, and they work up little codes together, and they analyze Greek mythology, and make up secret societies where other guys who never had girlfriends before can join in. They do stupid crap like this to feel special. It's a scam. Nerds were doin' it twenty-five years ago, and new nerds are doin' it again." Merrill Hess, from the movie Signs

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ripple]

14. You still haven't. Try again.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

10. Why? It's a bullshit site.

[Montauk6]

11. Here's a question NO freeper would dare answer...

OK, so let's say that Bush & Friends went into Iraq with all innocence, relying on bogus Clinton intelligence that there were these ungodly amounts of WMDs, and this was NOT about $$$. Fine.

Uhhhhhh, why THEN did Bush find it necessary to issue Executive Order 13033 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html)?

[ripple]

13. Thank you!!!

Good information. I'll definitely use it.

[ripple]

12. I am NOT a troll

I hope those who have posted that will recognize that I'm NOT a troll, but I'm sick of Clinton being used to excuse Bush's actions. So far, I have seen a lot of accusations towards me, and not a single answer to my request for help.

I know I don't have 1000+ posts, but I don't have a lot of comp time. Precisely the reason I decided to ask for help with this issue, rather than spend hours researching it. The same guy who posted this stuff STILL swears that the US did not provide weapons to Hussein, despite source after source I cited. This time, I decided to ask a lot of people who have done a lot of research, or so I thought. I'm not slamming DU, but dammit, if I wanted to be accused of disingenuous shit, I would just go to a site that slams people like me for my opinions. At least that's a notch better than being slapped down for seeking help from like-minded people, so that I could set the record straight. Jeez.

[FM Arouet666]

17. I am not a troll, I am a human being.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. You are more likely to be branded because you are new, some DU members will not acknowledge posts from people less than 1000+. I disagree with this thinking, I remember how hard it was to elicit a response to my posts in the beginning.

But seriously, what you are asking is for DU members to review a site and counter an enormous number of claims, point by point. DU members are very well informed, speaking for myself, I read about 10 blogs a day, various news internet sites, watch cable and t.v. news and a host of other political/news programs. Not to mention the right wing radio programs and three daily news papers. And I average 80 to 100+ hours a week as a physician. Not much time to look up links to counter the site you posted.

As you posted, you have source after source which counters the notion that the U.S. did not give WMDs to Hussein. You have obviously done some research.

I would suggest that you research the site in question ad nauseum and if you find a specific issue which you are unable to resolve, then present the information to DU. Failure of the members of this board to rehash a large body of misinformation is not an indication of weakness, the same argument presents itself with ID theory.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach basic evolution theory and science to everyone who posses a challenge, especially if the challenge originates at the most basic level of the discussion. The site you posted is an analogue to the most basic level of the discussion compared to the ID discussions. :evilfrown:

[ripple]

18. Point well taken.

I shouldn't expect others to do the leg work for me. I've already argued that Clinton felt that a ground war would be a disaster, as did HW. To me, that makes the other guy's points largely moot. Not to mention that both Powell and Rice said in 2001 that Hussein did not have the weaponry to pose a threat to his neighbors. I just have a feeling that a lot of what is presented on the site in question has been taken out of context. When I get time, I'll do some research on that.

Thank you for the well-reasoned response!

[hfojvt]

15. the question is moot

Of course, I am not sure how the question comes about, but it seems to me that if you have an argument attacking Bush, that must be answered by an argument defending Bush. If it is answered by an attack on Clinton, then that person is just admitting that they cannot defend Bush. If you allow yourself to be drawn into the task of defending Clinton, then you have let yourself be distracted. OTOH if there is a thread or discussion attacking Clinton, I probably would not join in because it is pretty irrelevant to what is going on now anyway.
Sure the site has that incendiary quote about people who care about the past, but it is one thing to care about the past from your easy chair or press box, and it is another thing to still be analyzing 1st down when the other team is getting ready to run on 3rd and 4. If you get distracted thinking about 1st down, they will blow you off the field. Activists need to be proactive, and not retroactive.

[ripple]

19. You're exactly right

And that is precisely what this idiot does. EVERYTHING that B*** screws up is automatically Clinton's fault. Drives me nuts.

[librechik]

21. excellent post!

thanks!

[hfojvt]

16. this link might be helpful

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=153&topic_id=1391

although you should already have read it. My point being that Bush and other Republicans did not just say Iraq had WMD in 1998 or 2002, but they said so after the inspectors had gotten in, and Roberts is quoted there in July of 2003 saying he had read classified reports which said that WMD had already been found. It is strange how that could be when it was finally discovered that there were no WMD.

[ripple]

20. Thank you

I had not seen that thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Straight Shooter]

23. Donate to DU, get a pretty gold star, and then you can research archives.

You notice that many on DU have a gold star by their name? That means they've donated ($5, $10,$30, whatever you can afford), which gives them the ability to dig through archives based on key words.

So, if you donate, you'll be helping DU and yourself, too. Just be careful, because those archives can be addictive!

Welcome to DU :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Good heavens

tell them to get some more recent 'evidence'. When they say 'well, Clinton left office 5 years ago', tell them EXACTLY.

Now move along, nothing to see here :eyes: