Quote:
Originally posted by layla2728
1 - tried and failed... mostly because he just used a good PR-sounding name for an act that effectively did nothing
2 - last I heard, we haven't caught Osama yet... you know, the one who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks
3 - even if this was true... since when has welfare been a priority for republicans?
4 - the guy he appointed to the UN has had nothing but disrespectful comments to make about the organization, and people around the world thought the appointment made a mockery of the position
going along with ktsnake... just how does the expansion of the government under Bush go along with conservative values? aren't they supposed to be the ones for decentralization? but I could be wrong I guess... I'm only a poli sci major.
|
1) Failed? That explains the measured and recorded improvements (
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/impo...lbworking.html). That explains why so many Dems were on board, and so many were upset that they wanted to present an idea like this first.
2) Yeah Clinton should have killed him. Clinton should have pursued him. Clinton, didn't. Now we have a problem. And now even if Osama died, that means nothing. Al Quaeda is considered a consulting group that provides financing and education to local terror cells and takes credit on a parallel level.
3) Getting people off welfare is.
4) Actually now that the politics game has subsided by Democrats on this, Bolton is getting praised quite a bit for his ability to get things done in the UN and his pursuit of serious reforms.
-Rudey