alt.politics.usa.republican

Sorry if this was a private conversation. ... It's too
embarassing to reveal how I stumbled upon it. :-) :-)

One thing that most clearly reveals the sad
childishness of the Bush Administration is
their early reliance on an ideology based solely
on "anti-Clintonism."
Bush had no discernable idealogy (and Cheney
none but his friends' greed) so their defining
platform was to simply do the opposite
of whatever Clinton had done! Clinton was actively
pursuing al-Qaeda, so Bush didn't ... (until he had
the opportunity to be a "War president").

That the Clinton Administration was far more concerned
with terrorism than the pre-September Bush Administration
is very well documented. Of course he was distracted,
to an absurd degree, by the Monica Lewinsky matter,
which was the most important issue for Republicans,
until they switched focus to al-Qaeda, and the
opportunities that gave to aggrandize their larcenous agenda.

It's always interesting to see how ignoramuses respond
when invited to an honest debate. Let's see....

On Aug 7, 4:41 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
wrote:
> Bokonon wrote:
> > Here it is again:
[a thorough and informative discussion of how Clinton's
anti-terrorism program was much stronger than Bush's
before 11 Sept 2001. This discussion was deleted
by Bill Bonde 'Hi ho'.]

Bokonen offered dozens of points. The disadvantage of
that is that one's opponent can seize on the weakest,
refute it, and ignore the dozens of stronger, better
substantiated points. Let's see if "Hi ho" figures this out:

> Here you go again, loading up. What part of that do you want me to
> refute?

:-) :-) :-) :-)

In the sequel, it turns out "Hi ho" attempts *no* refutation
of *any* of Bokonen's points! (I suspect Bokonen's
discussion was well above the 3rd-grade Fox-News level
"Hi ho" is comfortable with.) I didn't pursue the
rest of the thread. I suppose "Hi ho" will eventually start
whining about Monica Lewinsky. :-)

Hilarious.

James