dude....answer my question....did clinton get everything involving terrorism exactly right??

yes or no???

9/4/2006 11:50:52 AM

You're not going to get a straight answer out of him. Just forget it.

Some people only think in black and white, and are pathetically unable to see the shades of gray.

9/4/2006 12:15:36 PM

Quote :

"I would respect you more if you had a semblence of an argument."

I don't need an argument to tell you how stupid you look.

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 1:03:39 PM

No. Bill Clinton did not get everything right on terrorism.

He was better at it than Bush, and you can't hold him responsible for Bush's failures.

9/4/2006 1:44:13 PM

clinton was great, anyone remember kosovo

9/4/2006 2:20:20 PM

well now look at this...now follow me.....

im not saying bush didnt mess it up....but...given the "huge" emphases that clinton put on terrorism...and given what they knew about al queda....should clinton have pulledthe trigger and killed bin ladin when he had the chance??

9/4/2006 3:01:31 PM

^You never addressed my post on page 1, so I'll repost it here.

Quote :

"are you that stupid??...that you just ignore things that you dont like?? ...if your too lazy to use google them im not going to list them...."

I document my claims, I'm not going to do your work for you. Who's the lazy one here? BTW, can you present an argument without debasing yourself and resorting to ad-hominem attacks?

Quote :

"and so WHAT if it was a number one priority for Reno....obviuosly clinton didnt take it seriously...im not trying to say that bush did....just come out of your liberal fantasy land for a few minutes and admit that neither did clinton"

Clinton did take it seriously. He hunted down, prosecuted and imprisoned terrorists that attacked the US.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

From the 911 Commission report:

Quote :

"These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

Quote :

"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764035,00.html"

From your own reference:

Quote :

"On one occasion a satellite photographed the Al-Qaeda leader on a hunting trip, but the White House ordered the CIA not to launch a missile attack after finding out that princes from a friendly Arab country were in his party."

You know what "friendly Arab country" those princes were from? That's right, the United Arab Emirates. The same nation that Bush wanted to hand over control of our ports!

9/4/2006 3:28:39 PM

I did address your point. You say Clinton took Bin Ladin seriously...i say he didnt because he had the chance to kill him ALOT of times and didnt. You have shown some instances where it might have been hard to carry that out....fine...that takes care of a few of them....he still had lots of chances and if he took bin ladin seriuosly, he would have taken him out...


now...follow me...

Quote :

"im not saying bush didnt mess it up....but...given the "huge" emphases that clinton put on terrorism...and given what they knew about al queda....should clinton have pulledthe trigger and killed bin ladin when he had the chance?? "

9/4/2006 3:31:17 PM

Quote :

" GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation CNN, July 30, 1996 Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping. "

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

9/4/2006 3:48:40 PM

should clinton have taken out bin laden in one of his many many opportunities??

9/4/2006 3:49:21 PM

Quote :

"should clinton have taken out bin laden in one of his many many opportunities??"

How did 3 grow into "many many"?

9/4/2006 4:29:45 PM

Quote :

" Under Fire, ABC Yanks Official Blog of 9/11 Docudrama Path to 9/11 graphicOn September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called “Path to 9/11,” billed as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.” In fact, the film was written by an unabashed conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton. The show’s official blog attracted many comments from the public criticizing the film for its inaccuracies. In response, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and director David Cunningham posted a number of strikingly defensive blog posts. Some excerpts: Clarification 1) This is not a documentary… 2) This is not a right wing agenda movie…By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush. -D. Cunningham Wed, Aug 30, 2006 22:01 Further clarafication This movie is well-supported and well-documented. But everyone should be aware, and we say so upfront in a long legend — “The following dramatization…has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes.” …Whoever wants to write and talk about this movie is free to do so, and we’ve been very open in talking to them. We can’t control who writes what… –Cyrus Nowrasteh Fri, Sep 1, 2006 16:59 Even Further Clarification …The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of “agenda”. …Watch the movie! Then let’s talk. If you haven’t seen the movie with your very own eyes - don’t castigate the movie out of ignorance. -David Cunningham Sat, Sep 2, 2006 16:48 Apparently, ABC is no longer interested in hosting a discussion about Path to 9/11. On Sunday, without announcement or explanation, ABC took the blog down. (The URL now redirects to the show’s homepage.) We’ve saved a copy of the full contents HERE. "

9/4/2006 5:21:35 PM

Quote :

"Who was president on 911?"

Who was president during Waco, OkC, The Trade Center Bombings, the USS Cole, the Embassy bombings in Africa?

9/4/2006 9:14:15 PM

^Clinton.

9/4/2006 9:36:27 PM

^^ thats funny, I dont recall republicans demanding an invasion of afganistan when those events happened.

9/5/2006 12:41:44 AM

Pure Propaganda.

9/6/2006 10:06:30 PM

Has anyone actually seen this, yet? I know it won't air on ABC until the 10th, but to gauge from the reactions this film isn't being premiered...

9/6/2006 10:26:10 PM

It was given a screening last month.

Quote :

"ABC Docudrama Sparks 9/11 Spat By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff The docudrama that ABC will air next week commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks seems likely to revive some long-running disputes over whether the Clinton or Bush administration has more to answer for in neglecting indications of a pending al Qaeda attack on the United States. “The Path to 9/11,” a five-hour, two-part depiction of events prior to the attacks, is to air Sept. 10 and 11. And early reviews among veterans of the Clinton White House are decidedly negative: They argue that the show downplays the Bush White House’s culpability while inventing some scenes out of whole cloth to dramatize the supposed negligence of Clinton officials. "

http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html

Blame Clinton for Bush's failure.

9/6/2006 11:46:30 PM

i think its cute that clinton is trying to get this pulled

but bush didnt say a word about farenheit 911


isnt that censorship bill?

9/7/2006 2:58:13 PM

What in Fahrenheit 9/11's portrayal of the President's response to 9/11 was factually inaccurate?

9/7/2006 3:02:07 PM

^ are you kidding me??

9/7/2006 3:05:05 PM

Was that the totality of your answer?

I asked a fucking question...

9/7/2006 3:06:00 PM

so did i?

9/7/2006 3:06:19 PM

I'm clearly not kidding. And you've clearly not answered my question.

Also note: Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't being distributed to public schools...

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 3:07:23 PM

not in the last 30 seconds...you are clearly correct

9/7/2006 3:07:57 PM

if you dont think the US Govt IN GENERAL, including Bush and Clinton, as well as a few previous Presidents, didn't take terrorism seriously enough before 9/11, then you're just arguing for your particular political side

Fact is, 9/11 was a wakeup call that it was a serious problem that needed to be addressed more...Bush happened to President during the 9/11 attacks, but those attacks weren't all planned in the ~7 months that Bush had been President during the time of those attacks

9/7/2006 3:10:16 PM

Before this thing airs, let's go ahead and get this out in the open:

1) If the film proves to portray the actions of the Clinton administration's actions in a historically inaccurate fashion, is the former administration justified in calling for the film to be pulled?

2) What would constitute proof that it portrayed their actions in a historically inaccurate fashion?

3) Will you or will you not watch the film?

4) What justifies the distribution of the film to public schools?

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 3:12:00 PM

1) no....
2) proof might be memo's or witnesses to conversations or meetings or something...i dont know...the burden of proof is on them .... just like its always on bush
3) doubt it...its probably all made up anyway

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/7/2006 3:13:38 PM

Quote :

"If the film proves to portray the actions of the Clinton administration's actions in a historically inaccurate fashion, is the former administration justified in calling for the film to be pulled? "

you dont like freedom of speech when the content doesnt fit your ideals?

9/7/2006 3:17:36 PM

^ You don't like answering questions?

If it's historically inaccurate, Clinton is justified in asking that it be modified or pulled, yes. What connection can you forge (and how) between that and not supporting free speech?

Do Bill Clinton and the former members of his administration not have a right to free speech? OMF

Everything TreeTwista10 said (before the above allegation) is true. And it can also be true that this "docudrama" (not to be confused with a documentary) is nothing but a hit piece on the Clinton administration. It could also be completely accurate for all we know. I'd suggest that the "drama" element leads me to infer otherwise, but until we've seen it, it's pretty much impossible to judge for ourselves.

trikk311:

1) Why not?

2) Why isn't the burden of proof on the makers of the docudrama instead?

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:21 PM. Reason : not to be confused...]

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ...]

9/7/2006 3:18:19 PM

seriously...where was the outrage from the left over farenheit 911....give me a break.....

does clinton have a right to be pissed about this and adamantly defend himself....yes
does clinton have a right to have this pulled??.....hell no

^i probably wont watch it because what happened before 911...who was at fault...who dropped the ball...which intelligence agencies screwed up...is of little consequence now...frankly, it doesnt matter

now it DOES matter to liberals...obviuosly...look at the outrage from the left over this...it matters to liberals because liberals are always more concerned with blaming people and looking backwards than they are about looking to the future and offering solutions....d

did bush drop the ball?..yes
did clinton drop the ball??...yes...

now what??

Quote :

"2) Why isn't the burden of proof on the makers of the docudrama instead? "

because writer and songwriters and playwrites and directors can say anything they want to...this is america...michael moore said whatever he wanted to in his movie...the same thing applies here

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/7/2006 3:19:11 PM

If Bush had tried to pull Farenheit 9/11 the Democrats would've had a field day, insinuating he only wanted it pulled because it was true and gave away his "secrets"

9/7/2006 3:30:28 PM

for real...i can just hear ted kennedy now talkin about how "THIS ADMINISTRATION!!!" is trying to cover up thier screw up which are so ingeniously uncovered by this fat bearded dude with a camera!!!

9/7/2006 3:31:56 PM

Does the family of Lyndon Johnson have a right to pressure the History Channel into pulling docudramas alleging that he was behind the Kennedy Assassination?

Quote :

"trikk311: now it DOES matter to liberals...obviuosly...look at the outrage from the left over this...it matters to liberals because liberals are always more concerned with blaming people and looking backwards than they are about looking to the future and offering solutions....d"

Bush's service record seemed to be of quite a bit of consequence to conservatives when CBS aired their story way back when. Why not just leave the faked memos alone if it was of so little consequence to the present at the time?

Quote :

"trikk311: did bush drop the ball?..yes did clinton drop the ball??...yes... now what??"

Obviously we now wait to see whether the docudrama is historically accurate or not.

Quote :

"trikk311: because writer and songwriters and playwrites and directors can say anything they want to...this is america...michael moore said whatever he wanted to in his movie...the same thing applies here"

I didn't argue they didn't have a right to make a film about whatever--they can. I'm wondering aloud if and whether ABC put the burden of proof on the filmmakers to support their claims before they air the movie. I highly doubt ABC would permit--even if the market demanded--a docudrama alleging the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to be historically factual without first requiring demonstrable proof of its claims for instance...

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: If Bush had tried to pull Farenheit 9/11 the Democrats would've had a field day, insinuating he only wanted it pulled because it was true and gave away his "secrets""

What if Michael Moore had distributed the film to public schools? Think he'd rest on his laurels then?

Oh, and-- What would constitute proof that it portrayed their actions in a historically inaccurate fashion?

I want to get this established so we can save ourselves time later...

9/7/2006 3:46:06 PM

i really enjoy reading gamecats posts in soapbox, i swear to god man i'm not lying or trolling or whatever...you are like the best soap box poster i think

9/7/2006 3:53:44 PM

damn html

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/7/2006 3:54:42 PM

Quote :

"Does the family of Lyndon Johnson have a right to pressure the History Channel into pulling docudramas alleging that he was behind the Kennedy Assassination? "

sure they have the right to ask...but the History Channel has the right to run it...the History Channel has the freedom to run it

Quote :

"If it's historically inaccurate, Clinton is justified in asking that it be modified or pulled, yes. What connection can you forge (and how) between that and not supporting free speech?"

ok...Clinton has the RIGHT to ASK that it be pulled...and the filmmakers have the RIGHT to PUT IT OUT ANYWAY

i guess bush had the RIGHT to ASK that farenheit 9/11 not come out but michael moore had the RIGHT to put it out anyway

9/7/2006 3:57:34 PM

Quote :

"Does the family of Lyndon Johnson have a right to pressure the History Channel into pulling docudramas alleging that he was behind the Kennedy Assassination?"

yes...do they have the right to demand that it be pulled down? yes...can the history channel do whatever it wants to?? yes

Quote :

"Bush's service record seemed to be of quite a bit of consequence to conservatives when CBS aired their story way back when. Why not just leave the faked memos alone if it was of so little consequence to the present at the time?"

At the time, we were talking about going to war or were already at war. The faked stories about Bush's gaurd record were a direct attempt to undermine the President DURING a time of war. That is not the same thing as casting blame for an event that took place 5 years ago or a murder that took place 40 years ago. It had a direct effect on a current situation. Thats why conservatives were pissed about that.

Quote :

"Obviously we now wait to see whether the docudrama is historically accurate or not. "

i highly doubt that this documentary places blame soley on clinton. but you are right...we will have to wait and see...and if it turns out that it does then i will be the first to say that its screwed up

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 3:59 PM. Reason : adsf]

9/7/2006 3:58:03 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: sure they have the right to ask...but the History Channel has the right to run it...the History Channel has the freedom to run it"

And for the record, they did. I'm not sure if they've aired it since, but it did air. As have other "documentaries" alleging that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

I agree with what you said.

Quote :

"trikk311: At the time, we were talking about going to war or were already at war. The faked stories about Bush's gaurd record were a direct attempt to undermine the President DURING a time of war."

And during a political campaign, the undermining of which was at least as important among Bill Burkett's motives as ending the Iraq War.

Quote :

"trikk311: It had a direct effect on a current situation. Thats why conservatives were pissed about that."

This docudrama could have a direct effect on a current situation as well. Why do you think liberals are full of piss and vinegar over this?

Quote :

"trikk311: i highly doubt that this documentarydocudrama places blame soley on clinton. but you are right...we will have to wait and see...and if it turns out that it does then i will be the first to say that its screwed up"

This is the biggest reason I honestly think the former Clinton administration is even addressing it. They know as well as the Bush administration does in the post-Fahrenheit 9/11 environment that the public isn't particularly good at distinguishing between the two, even if scholars and news editors are. They don't want to see a future in which "I saw this documentary saying Bill Clinton, for no reason besides loving terrorists, allowed Osama bin Laden to live when he had the chance to kill him" becomes a common statement.

At no point do I imply that ABC should be compelled to remove it. I think they should if its claims are grossly inaccurate or grossly misrepresents the facts, and demonstrably so in either case, but only if it isn't differentiated from news content. ABCs role is one of a for-profit news service, which comes with the responsibility of being at least somewhat accurate with its news content. That's as far as I'll go with it.

That said, it's obvious that Clinton and his former staff are trying to protect his administration's legacy. I'd argue that after the Bush administration is out, you'll see plenty of similar efforts from them on the same matter when the docudramas about the inside of the White House during 9/11 come out.

Believing Clinton was an awful president is one thing. Pretending he'd be unjustified to call for the pulling of a historically inaccurate docudrama--if it proves to be so--is another matter. Generally it seems like everyone understands this.

9/7/2006 4:39:42 PM

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

Quote :

"ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre. The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense. "The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant. After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute. After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved. "That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations." In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended. ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews." The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues." None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however. The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release."

9/7/2006 5:29:56 PM

Quote :

"This docudrama could have a direct effect on a current situation as well. Why do you think liberals are full of piss and vinegar over this?"

placing some blame on clinton for 911 retrospecitvely will not have a direct effect on a current situation the same way claiming bush went awol during vietnam had on a presidential campaign during which the bush presidency was leading the nation in a war...for you to claim that the two are comperable is completely absurd and you know it

Quote :

"Why do you think liberals are full of piss and vinegar over this?"

because this documentary might make thier boy look bad...thats why. Pryderi-esq liberals who refuse to believe that Clinton ever f*%#ed up anything (except monica lewinsky) will fight to the death to defend his legacy. The thing is, this debate is completely one sided. You dont see any conservatives here claiming that Bush did everything perfectly. He obviously did not. But people who claim that clinton did not mess up when he did not take bin-ladin out are only making themselves look bad.

So next time you see pryderi come on here and say "dont blame clinton for bush's mistakes" just remember...thats my only point. That and the fact that ABC can say whatever they want to...cause this is america dangit.

Quote :

"Pretending he'd be unjustified to call for the pulling of a historically inaccurate docudrama--if it proves to be so--is another matter."

you wont see me disagree with this anywhere...

Again...im only in this retrospective/worthless/non-productive thread because idiots like pryderi want to claim that clinton has absolutly zero responsibility for 911....that claim is completely absurd

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 6:40 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/7/2006 6:33:43 PM

It's not a documentary.

9/7/2006 7:02:26 PM

Back in 2003, the GOP successfully pressured CBS to pull the Streisand-controlled biopic "Reagan" and banished it to Showtime.

As that film was a portrait of Reagan through the liberally hazy eyes of Streisand et al, "The Path to 911" is supposed to be drawn mainly from the 911 commission report.

Still it will be interesting to see if the Dems can pressure ABC to pull it. If not, compared to the GOP's success with getting "Reagan" pulled, I would see this as a Democrat PR defeat.

9/7/2006 9:40:14 PM

the path to 9/11 should start when reagan cut and run from bierut

9/7/2006 9:52:22 PM

More to the point of the original thread, if anyone is interested in a less biased and more deeply historical documentary about the rise of the Islamic extremist movement, the BBC screened a very informational three-part documentary called The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

If you're interested in watching it, it's available on Google Video now... http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+of+nightmares&btnG=Search+Video

[Edited on September 7, 2006 at 10:37 PM. Reason : found a link]

9/7/2006 10:37:46 PM

I'll agree that Clinton was not perfect.

However,I believe his administration had a more intense focus on terrorism in his last few years of office than Bush did when he entered office.

There's plenty of evidence that during the transition, the Clinton people were trying impress upon the incoming administration the danger of bin Laden and terrorism.

Also, President Clinton and former members of his administration asked for a copy of the gop-u-drama, and were refused whereas right-wingers like Limbaugh got a copy.

9/7/2006 10:54:12 PM

whatever...dont blame clinton for bush's mistakes

9/7/2006 10:58:46 PM

What was really pissing me off was Scholastic was going to send out study guides to schools that would accompany the free distribution of the gopudrama to those schools.

I still don't know what for what reason Disney/ABC is giving away free copies to schools.

Scholastic is not going to be sending the "study guides" now.

Quote :

"SCHOLASTIC REPLACES "THE PATH TO 9/11" CLASSROOM GUIDE WITH NEW DISCUSSION MATERIALS FOCUSING ON CRITICAL THINKING AND MEDIA LITERACY SKILLS September 7, 2006 – New York, NY -- Scholastic, the global children’s publishing, education and media company, today announced that it is removing from its website the materials originally created for classroom use in conjunction with the ABC Television Network docudrama, "The Path to 9/1l," scheduled to air on the ABC Television Network on September 10 and 11, 2006. A new classroom discussion guide for high school students is being created and will focus more specifically on media literacy, critical thinking, and historical background. "After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic. "At the same time, we believe that developing critical thinking and media literacy skills is crucial for students in today’s society in order to participate fully in our democracy and that a program such as ‘The Path to 9/11’ provides a very ‘teachable moment’ for developing these skills at the high school level. We encourage teachers not to shy away from the controversy surrounding the program, but rather to engage their students in meaningful, in-depth discussion." The new guide clearly states that Scholastic had no involvement with developing the ABC docudrama, and that the company is not promoting the program, but that the program can provide a springboard to discussion about the issues leading up to 9/11, terrorism and the Middle East. The guide will focus on three issues: Media Literacy - what is a docudrama; how does it differ from a documentary; what are the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization? Background to 9/11 - what are some of the causes of unrest in the Middle East and other parts of the world that give rise to attacks on the U.S. and other countries? Geography and Culture -- there is a long history of conflict in the Middle East. How well do students understand each of the countries involved and what influences their behavior? Scholastic has been providing free educational materials for use in the classroom in conjunction with television programs and films since the 1950’s. Classroom discussion guides have also been created in the past to support discussion of major events such as the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters, the shootings at Columbine and many others. "As we have done with many discussion guides in the past related to major events, we encourage teachers to engage their students in these important discussions about news, media and public opinion. Understanding and evaluating media messages can be challenging for adults and young people alike and developing media literacy skills is critical for students in order for them to be well-informed participants in our democratic society," added Robinson. The Scholastic mission is clearly stated in its credo and editorial platform which includes the statement: "Good citizens may honestly differ on important public questions. We believe that all sides of the issues of our times should be fairly discussed – with deep respect for facts and logical thinking – in classroom magazines, books and other educational materials used in schools and homes." The new guide will be available on Friday, September 8 at http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy. "

9/7/2006 11:06:59 PM

Quote :

"the Clinton people were trying impress upon the incoming administration the danger of bin Laden and terrorism. "

if they were really trying to impress upon the incoming administration the danger of bin
laden and terrorism dont you think they wouldve killed or captured bin Laden since they had multiple chances?

9/8/2006 1:00:46 AM

whats funny is that everytime you bash clinton for not getting bin laden, bush's poll numbers drop. everytime you remind the public about the failure of the current admin. to get him, the democrats win. getting at a past president really has no effect, other then to satisfy the deep conservative base. talking about this subject is a win for anyone who opposes the current admin. moderates simply wonder where bin laden is now, and why bush hasnt got him like he basically promised.



[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : fghd]

9/8/2006 1:18:10 AM