For what it's worth:

The man later got a prosthetic face (an interesting story by itself, created by a man who had his own history working for the CIA): http://www.healthaire.co.nz/images/mark_tatum3.jpg

And apparently he did die of unknown causes: http://www.mold-help.org/content/view/544/

"Mr. Mark Tatum, also known by many as the man without a face, passed 4:00 CST Saturday, February 26, 2005 at the Medco Center of Franklin, Kentucky. Tatum lost his eyes, upper jaw, and nose to a fungal infection in 2000. This type of infection is not that unusual, but the extent of the damage that it did to Tatum was very rare. Tatum was a medical phenomena due to the fact that he survived the infection. Due to his extreme experience, Tatum was highly profiled in the media by many people including Larry King, Maury Povich, and Ripley's Believe it or Not. He was a courageous individual who served as a symbol of strength for the thousands of people who have lost their health, homes, and livliehood from fungal exposure.

According to a friend who spoke to him that day, Mr. Tatum was in good spirits and feeling very positive towards his future. He had just been fitted with a new prosthetic face (see below). He was extremely excited about helping victims of toxagenic mold exposure so he could uncover the real truth about fungus as a synonymous predator to the virus and bacteria.

At this point, the cause of his death is still unknown. An autopsy has been requested by his family. More information will be posted when we obtain the results.

Funeral services were held March 2, 2005 at Crafton Funeral Home. The Rev. Winston Roberts officiated with burial at Hillsdale Cemetery. Tatum was a native of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, and worked as a security guard until his fungal infection in 2000. He was the son of the late Franklin Eugene Tatum and Emma Thomas Tatum.

Donations in Mark Tatum's name will be gratefully accepted to assist the Children's Angel Fund:

Children's Angel Fund
P.O. Box 1026
Pepperell, MA 01463"

You can read more on the page. I will be sending along a donation for that fund soon. I was impressed by the strength and courage displayed by Mr. and Mrs. Tatum. I don't know if I would have had the same strength of will to keep fighting if I were in the same situation.

One more vote to send this to the front...

"Subsequent rebroadcasts of the same Larry King Live segment were edited to remove the direct reference to Mehlman, and CNN demanded removal of clips of the unedited show from YouTube."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman

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

". Clinton is receiving it because Fox was attempting to set a political agenda through the interview and elections are fast approaching... Fox takes any and all shots at known democrats to attempt to alleviate pressure on the republicans and the Bush administration. Remember the battle against Chrismas? Completely orchestrated by Fox News in order to turn the cameras away from the administration."

Ah yes, more evidence on the "vast right-wing conspiracy". If Clinton is such a terffic statesman and elegant speaker then this whole thing shouldn't have happened. By your estimation, the fact that he gave a round of interviews to several networks during election season is by design and not by coincidence. He could have turned Fox down and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But this isn't about Fox, it's about Clinton, and it still shows that he is used to soft treatment by the media. Larry King; Soft, Olberman; Soft, then Chris Wallace asks if he did enough to connect the dots about Al Qeada, and he COULDN'T HANDLE IT, and calls it a republican hit job. What did he expect? Every interview he gives is centered around how awesome he is, did he honestly think he wouldn't be asked a hard question?



"I find it infuriating that the right-wing believers cannot make a decision on their own. And if anyone makes a decision contrary to the right-wing's belief - based on the facts presented - then the right-wing calls them "liberal leftists." "

The door swings both ways.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Holy sh*t that must have been huge in japan. That kind of out of control emotion is pretty amzing for Japanese national TV.

I the US, they probably would have just gone on Larry King, and made the cover of People.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Newspapers, but not TV Ant. Still waiting for Larry King to call.