Not one person refutes the claims. I'm surprised they didn't mix in McClellan using the same talking points to dismiss Richard Clarke's book.

Guess you stick with what works.

Not one person refutes the claims. I'm surprised they didn't mix in McClellan using the same talking points to dismiss Richard Clarke's book.

Guess you stick with what works...even when it doesn't!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, Richard Clark, Jason Alexander, Real Time' to 'Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, Richard Clarke, Jason Alexander, Real Time' - edited by deedub81

*promote

Think about what is really going on here.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm

I plead with all of you to read this, consider that these policies have been stated and documented for over 15 years now, and resolve to not be manipulated. Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism adviser on the US National Security Council for 11 years, has said repeatedly that he, the CIA, and other intelligence officials, warned Condoleeza Rice and the Bush administration repeatedly that there was a very high risk of an attack on U.S. soil, but Rice neglected to even hold a meeting about the subject until the week before 9/11. That event provided the impetus to put all of the policies of the neoconservative movement into action, capitalizing on American citizens' fear of terrorists and future attacks on our soil. THINK, PEOPLE!

I do believe that now, because there is a lot of credible information to support that. See the comments from Richard Clarke in 'Against All Enemies' for example. Someone who was actually there for the last three administrations.

I admit that I was a sucker for the sell for the Iraq war initially - I didn't so much care that they didn't find the WMD's but that Saddam was removed. I figured if they didn't get the WMD's, it doesn't matter so bad cause they're going to liberate the country primarily. To learn that their reasons were alternate was very hard going. I'm not closed minded to the realities, so long as they're supportable with more than just conjecture.

But I accept that this was a plan they'd had for a long time because THAT makes sense. Moreso than accepting that they'd actually fire a missile into the Pentagon or hide the passengers from Flight 93 for the rest of their lives (assuming that no word of this would ever escape). I mean c'mon... Where's your internal bullshit detectors, guys?

Verify sources and consider them. Ye'll find a LOT of sources on this interview here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092506/content/clinton_interview_overview.guest.html

Just go to the bottom of the page for links to over a dozen articles and analysis.

All I really got from this was that Clinton can't take tough questions. He's used to having interviews like on Larry King et. al where the toughest questions asked of him are "do you agree that Bush is bad for America?" Can anyone say 'softball'?

Bush is repeatedly and regulary excoriated in the most disrespectful and insolent manner possible by almost everyone he is interviewed by and 'hostile' questions/comments come up repeatedly by the snarky interviewers who almost always suffix it with 'why won't you admit your mistakes and confess that this war/your presidency is illegal/illegitimate?'

But let one interviewer ask the crowned King-William Jefferson-Blyyyyyyythe-Clinton-III if HE did anything wrong and he blows up. Note he was not asked to 'admit his mistakes'. But he responded as if he had been.

Always the same song and dance. Wagging his finger in our faces and saying "I did NOT have sex with that woman. I never lied - I never told anyone to lie." Chewing on his bottom lip as if he were the one who had been horribly wronged. Furiously attacking everyone who disagrees with him, but if he is ever criticized it's: "Hey - no attack.... ever fed... a hungry child."

The wagging finger is almost a sure sign that he's lying. He lied right there in that interview. He said Richard Clark was removed before 9/11 from his post - hinting that this 'led' to the attacks and that if only he had remained there, they might have been prevented. He even cited Clark's book as proof of it. But if you actually read his book, Clark says himself that he REMIANED the terrorism 'czar' until AFTER 9/11 and that he changed posts not at the insistence of the Bush admin, but because he wanted to be in charge of the new department.

So who was lying? Clinton, or Clark? Because if Clinton was lying, that's no surprise. But if Clark was lying in his book, then Clinton is doubly at fault, because he lied in citing it as the truth.

This is not a man who is quick on his feet or a great stateman. He's an immature beaurocrat who's used to having the media covering for him, and was flabbergasted that they didn't. If any of these other 'news' networks had any salt in them at all, they'd be asking him tough questions like this. Remember, this is the guy who fought to stomp on the ever-beloved 1st amendment by threatening Disney and ABC to cancel "The Path to 9/11". For once, thankfully, they didn't pay any attention to him.

Slyrr

I think I've got most of the voices figured...

Fly: W, natch
Spider: Britney Spears -LOL
Jackass: Blair?
Pig: Richard Clarke
Hound: Rummie
Fox: Colin Powell- the last honourable member of the W administration
Arabic Dog: ?
Pigeon: Condi?

Anyone else make 'em out differently? Can anyone tell us who the Arabic-speaking fellow is?