Woodward

[Doomstone]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml



"Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible," says Woodward.

"Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. .Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."




But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, `Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, `So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?' And Cheney who has said nothing says the following: `Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.'"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn't enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. "Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, `Their message is my message,'" says Woodward.

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.

Woodward says that Bandar understood that economic conditions were key before a presidential election: "They're [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."




Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, `Well no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "And then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, `He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, `There's a higher father that I appeal to.'"

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.

"The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation," says Woodward.




[quote]
And in the wake of the war, according to Woodward, there's a deep rift between Powell and Cheney.

"The relationship between Cheney and Powell is essentially broken down. They can't talk. They don't communicate," says Woodward. "Powell feels that Cheney drove the decision to go to war in Iraq. And Cheney feels that Powell has not been sufficiently supportive of the president in the war or in the aftermath."

Which of the two was more prescient about how Iraq would turn out? "All of Powell's warnings think of the consequences, Pottery Barn rules. If you break it, you own it. And that'

[HBox]

History, we don't know. We'll all be dead

That's the most brilliant, insightful thing he's ever said.

I mean that as both an insult and a compliment.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[ADF]

Something tells me that Colin Powell regrets joining this cabinet. He's one of the few people I respect in the government, but maybe that's just because he's former military with a somewhat realistic outlook on the world and how things actually work.

<center><img src = "http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images2/adf2bn.JPG"><br>Sigpic courtesy of Arienette... <i><b>blablam!</i></b></center>

[NITRON]

The administration wanted war all along--with or without the UN. It was a matter of making the enemy weaker by getting intelligence on what he had--or didn't have. Iraq couldn't have avoided the war.

"It matters not how straight the gate,
How charge with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate the
captain of my soul."

[JerryTaker]

Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.


This is Bush's "october surprise," huh? Am I nuts, or is this downright criminal, and impeachable? It's definately worse than disputing the definition of "is"

Lest we forget that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama....

Of course the Republican house won't stop kissing this administration's ass long enough to write up any articles of impeachment, after all, that is it's responsibility.

Wait, if the articles of impeachment are written in a body of government controlled by the Republicans, and every effort is made to impeach a Democratic president, while a republican shows questionable judgement time and time again, and nobody raises a finger...

The House couldn't possibly be putting party money ahead of their duty in the line of "checks and balances" that is besowed upon them by the constitiution, would they?



<IMG SRC="http://web.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[HBox]

I don't think that's actually an impeachable offense. What might be, if the Congress was willing to push enough, is using money appropriated for Afghanistan secretly to start preparing for the Iraq war.

But things are so polarized in Washington that if Watergate were to happen all over again I'd bet this Republican Congress wouldn't do shit.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[JerryTaker]

well, to take it a little further than impeachment..



"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, `Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.


um..... Isn't this Treason?


<IMG SRC="http://web.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[A.J.]

well, to take it a little further than impeachment..



"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, `Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.


um..... Isn't this Treason?


<IMG SRC="http://web.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

I believe government officials at that level can authorize the sharing of information that may be classified. Peons like me cannot.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[HBox]

Isn't this Treason?

[size=2]I don't think so. Bandar wasn't the enemy, he's actually considered a ::shudder:: ally. It might be a crime, but not treason.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[keithy_19]

Is there going to be a book bashing the president every week from now until the election?

http://www.silentpix.com/modules/Coppermine/albums/userpics/dreamcometruesig.jpg

[DarkHippie]

Is there going to be a book bashing the president every week from now until the election?
There's enough to bash him on. Even is you're all for Bush, you should at least read one or two or the books so you know what we're complaining about. It might be heavy for a teenager, but its worth it to be informed.

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/eo.jpg>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discretion, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[HBox]

Is there going to be a book bashing the president every week from now until the election?

I KNOW! I mean, COME ON! Bob WOODWARD!? What the hell! Nixon wasn't enough!? And don't think I haven't read your other book, Bush at War! What a fucking hatchet job, you partisan punk!!!!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[furie]

this is a surprise?
the entire world is in bed with the house of Saud.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/hanzo.jpg">

[Yerdaddy]

How deep a man is President George W. Bush? "He's not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker," says Woodward. "He chastised me at one point because I said people were concerned about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. And he said, `Well you travel in elite circles.' I think he feels there is an intellectual world and he's indicated he's not a part of it . the fancy pants intellectual world. What he calls the elite."

http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/yosemite.jpg "I'm not a-goin' in fir that high-fallootin' fancy-pants book learnin' malarkey! I paid my four bits to see the high diving act and I'm-a gonna SEE the high diving act!"

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Even is you're all for Bush, you should at least read one or two or the books so you know what we're complaining about. It might be heavy for a teenager, but its worth it to be informed.
As a Bush supporter, I could not agree more.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[smeagol]

You emotional Bush haters are lovin this Woodward book huh?

Clouded with ill will, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You end up myopic and uninformed, right where you started.


First, bear with me, I have a Suggested Reading List for you - direct from the Official BushCheney2004 web site.

Lets see hmm there are books from Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Lynne Cheney, Sean Hannity. And - hold it! right at the top! can't miss it! Is it? Yes it is! Bob Woodward - Plan of Attack???? Right to Amazon so's you can buy it!

BushCheney2004's Campaign Suggested Reading List (http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/#books)

Why, why , why would they promote such a book that, as you all know so very fucking well, makes GW look so, sooo bad. Are they foolish? or do they just to be fair and give all opinions on their official site? Yeah right

Could they actually like what the book has to say? Approve of the book's overall "message"? I'm thinking that yes, they do. They must, to have linked it.

And, so many seem to put a lot of trust in Woodward `journalism'. It's Bob Woodward, man! Right? I'll agree that he knows how to sell books. (FACT: Woodward once documented word for word quotes from former CIA chief W. Casey - while Casey was in a COMA) !!!??? amazing journalism skills Any way, I'll indulge you. Keep believing him.

"Woodward's book describes how Bush was deeply skeptical about the CIA's conclusions regarding Iraqi WMD - even after he was presented with a "Top Secret" document starkly warning: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons."

"What changed the president's mind? Woodward vividly describes a meeting in the Oval Office in which George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, responded to Bush's doubts by rising up from his seat and throwing his arms in the air. "It's a slam-dunk case!" he said.

"Even that didn't quite persuade Bush. He pressed further, asking Tenet: "George, how confident are you?" At which point, the nation's top spy - a nonideological nonpartisan who held the same job in the Clinton administration - "threw his arms up again. 'Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!' he repeated."

"According to Woodward's reporting - he instructed his CIA chief to assemble the evidence on WMD, adding cautiously: "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

"The Woodward book also reveals that early in this administration, Vice President Dick Cheney recognized that, "Democracy in the Middle East is just a big deal for (President Bush). It's what's driving him." That's news to me. Isn't that news to you? But have you heard anyone in the media talk about it?

"One more surprise: It's not a secret that President Bill Clinton in 1998 signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the U.S. government. What was not widely known before Woodward's book was that in 2002 the CIA reluctantly concluded that neither diplomacy nor clandestine action could get the job done. Instead, the CIA's top Iraq specialist told Bush that he regarded "military action as the only feasible way of removing Hussein." Bush coulda abandoned America's bipartisan policy on Iraq, I suppose.

"Plan of Attack" also shows Bush listening - sometimes for hours - to Secretary of State Colin Powell as he made reasoned arguments about how difficult it would be to help Iraqis transform their injured nation into a free and democratic society.

"On some occasions, Bush did take Powell's advice. Over Cheney's "strenuous objections," he followed Powell's strong recommendation to go to the United Nations "to seek new weapons inspection resolutions." On other occasions, he took Cheney's counsel instead. Could it be that this president actually did listen to various advisers and then make up his own mind?

Of course you all heard these parts of the book described on 60 minutes right? HA!

That Woodward knows how to sell books!

Sixty minutes, by the way - is not "news". It is a "news magazine" at best. It is

[HBox]

An abridged version of smeagol's post:

Think Woodward's book is bad for Bush? NO! Bush wants you to read it, so it has to be good! But Woodward is a crappy journalist! But he says that Bush was persuaded about WMD's by George Tenet! And the CIA said we had to ivade Iraq! And Colin Powell toold Bush about how difficult invading Iraq would be, and sometimes he actually listened to him! See, it's everybody BUT Bush's fault! Take THAT liberals! Oh yeah, 60 minutes sucks. And so does Andy Rooney.

Man, smeagol, you spun around so many times during that post you just have to be dizzy.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

This message was edited by HBox on 4-23-04 @ 11:55 AM

[smeagol]

Abridged, yet inaccurate

Think Woodward's book is bad for Bush? NO! Bush wants you to read it, so it has to be good!
I didn't say that.

.and sometimes he actually listened to him! See, it's everybody BUT Bush's fault!
I didn't say that.

Take THAT liberals!
I didn't say that.


Abridged:

(1) The vast majority of TV and ink coverage on this book (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, Latimes), and Woodward himself (as he promotes the book) use the book to paint an unflattering portrait of GW.

(2) The posts here are largely the same. The negative quotes, talk of `treason', `impeachment', Powell's regrets. ("Emotional Bush Haters - 101"). In a very general sense, we can assume that there are plenty of others out there who think the book is unflattering to Bush.

(3) Yet, the BushCheney Campaign clearly wants you all out there to read this book. So THEY obviously think it's good for them.

(4) So read it if you want to. Believe it, all of it, or some of it, or none of it - I don't care what you read or believe. I don't feel the need to convince anyone about anything! I AM NOT among those, for example, hitching up to a fucking book by Bob Woodward and ending up on an EXTREME such as `treason' or `impeachment'.

(5) Someone's being spun and/or spinning - and it ain't me.


(P.S.) 60 Minutes is NOT objective, NOT balanced, and yes it does SUCK. And Rooney IS a fat pompous LOAD.

This message was edited by smeagol on 4-24-04 @ 11:03 AM

[TheMojoPin]

Smeagol, have you read the book?

Here's something spin-free, since I have.

It's a negative portrait of the administration's major foreign policy actions since 9/11.

Boom. Done.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

It's a negative portrait of the administration's major foreign policy actions since 9/11.

But only in regards to Iraq and not Afghanistan, correct?

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Yerdaddy]

The Washington Post series on the book:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19691-2004Apr17.html" target="_blank">part 1: Behind Diplomatic Moves, Military Plan Was Launched </a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22552-2004Apr18?language=printer" target="_blank">part 2: With CIA Push, Movement to War Accelerated</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25550-2004Apr19.html" target="_blank">part 3: War Cabinet Divided</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28710-2004Apr20.html" target="_blank">part 4: Blair Steady in Support</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32572-2004Apr21.html" target="_blank">part 5: Countdown to War</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19692-2004Apr17.html" target="_blank">Rove Revels in Democrat Kerry's Lead </a>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 4-24-04 @ 4:09 PM

[TheMojoPin]

It's a negative portrait of the administration's major foreign policy actions since 9/11.

But only in regards to Iraq and not Afghanistan, correct?

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

True. Like a great many people in this county, it seems that I too have forgotten about Afghanistan.

And to expand on what I said, the book is NOT an overall condemnation of the administration...pretty much just how we've operation in regards to Iraq and since the invasion. Woodward isn't on a witch hunt here...his previous book, "Bush At War" (A brilliant book which should be required reading in an impossible perfect history/current events class, and does not paint Bush and Co. in a biased light at all) is ample proof of that.

The new book focuses on the country's current Iraq-related actions and policies, and to a lesser degree, possible shady dealings with the ridicuously shady Saudi royal family. It's almost impossible to spin much of into a positive analysis of the Bush administration's Middle East actions...so I have no clue why they'd be pushing the book themselves as Smeagol is saying. But reading the book it's plain as day how bad many of these things look, even to the most devout Bush supporter. But therein lies the key...one must read the book for themselves as opposed to being spun by the spinsters instead.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

I've only read the Washington Post excerpts that came out this week (the ones Yerdaddy linked). Based on those, my take was that Bush's main fault was that he was too swayed by bad advice from the two people that really came off bad in this book: George Tenet with the "slam dunk" on WMDs and Dick Cheney who was as obsessed at getting Saddam as Khan was getting Kirk in Star Trek 2.

Bush really needs to get Karen Hughes back as an advisor and dump Cheney. He should replace him with the guy he should have picked the first time around: Tom Ridge.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

*Wink-wink*

Good analysis.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[NITRON]

"I'm not a-goin' in fir that high-fallootin' fancy-pants book learnin' malarkey! I paid my four bits to see the high diving act and I'm-a gonna SEE the high diving act!"


Ironic...Yosemite Sam was always getting his ass kicked--Unlike President Bush.

"It matters not how straight the gate,
How charge with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate the
captain of my soul."

[TheMojoPin]

In what way have we EVER had a president get their "ass kicked" outside of those that were thrown out of or killed in office?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[smeagol]

I'm not trying to make a definitive case that the book is 'good' or 'bad'. I'm reacting to to the amazingly wide range of reactions.

Is there an easy answer to:

"If it's so bad, why does Bush campaign want you to read it so much that you can buy it from their campaign website, as the first suggested reading item?"

or

"If it's so good, why is most TV and ink coverage so unflattering"


My point isn't about what I think about the book or what you think about it, it's about motivations of most TV and ink media.

Why? How? Because it is a very big deal that the Bush Campaign has endorsed this book in a very big way, in the face of all the media flack.

And I believe that you will see and hear almost nothing about this and the details behind it from the same outlets so eager to hack away at Bush last week.


But, of course it's not "wrong" for the media to have motivations or leanings, just amazing what you hear and read reported (or not reported) about the same events.
I mean, the major outlets all have different "approaches", and rarely can they be pinned down as "wrong" in an objective sense.

(notice you never say "spin", "bias", "slant" unless you don't agree.)

Newpapers offer their editorial page (not the op-ed). Every day in black and white, very definitive. THAT is where the paper is coming from and you WILL see that same "approach" on the FRONT PAGE, in different degrees. And, not subtle in the least, of course you realize that "News Analysis" = "Editorial", and "News Analysis" appear more and more on the Front Pages.
-------------
Bush Campaign, at Least, Likes Portrait in Woodward Book (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/politics/trail/20TRAIL-BOOK.html)
(needs a login - but it's free)

"Though there might be some dispute about some factual things, we are overall heartened by the book," said Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist. "It's a very good reflection of a thoughtful, resolute president going into a very tough decision. We think in the end it will be a very good thing."

Does the NYT writer even try to explain WHY, or maybe offer a few quotes from the book to try to understand WHY? No, but they sure were quick on the unflattering aspects?
-------------
Sideshow Bob (Why Woodward always misses the point) (http://slate.msn.com/id/2099279/)

(it may sound pro-Bush from title, but it is far from it)
-------------
PLAN OF ... SALES (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19172.htm)

Will Bush Now Fire Tenet? (http://www.aim.org/aim_column_print/1453_0_3_0/)

[Mike Teacher]

More importantly; which one was he; Redford or Hoffman?

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">

[TheMojoPin]

Redford.

Smeagol, read the book. That might help you the most here, instead of trying to "get it" through other people.

Of course the White House is going to either try and refute these books, or spin them into a positive light. When have they just sat back and taken ANY of these recent books? They've been going out of their way to try and turn these things around...and trying to spin Woodward's book to their favor doesn't "prove" anything. Maybe if they were able to, or even attempted, to refute what Woodward is saying in the book, their efforts might carry a tad more weight. It's very telling when they try and say a lot about these sort of accusations without saying absolutely anything at all.

Again, read the book and judge for yourself.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-25-04 @ 10:01 PM

[DarkHippie]

<img src=http://www.lisamcpherson.org/protest/3-8-03/images/bush_gollum_jpg.jpg width=350>

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/eo.jpg>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discretion, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[Doomstone]

http://www.nerdie.com/images/bushgollum.jpg



<center><img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/ds_sig.jpg">
Thanks to M1 for the sig!</center>

[JerryTaker]

might as well keep this train a-rollin.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_precious.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://web.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[high fly]

Isn't this Treason?

[size=2]I don't think so. Bandar wasn't the enemy, he's actually considered a ::shudder:: ally. It might be a crime, but not treason.


In the Bush family, Bandar is referred to as "Bandar Bush."


One amusing aspect of this story is that before the book came out, Limbaugh and his Limbozos were out there clubbing a book they hadn't read (like the way they clubbed the Reagan movie without seeing it).
Then Woodward's book comes out and the White House likes it so much they urge people to buy it.


" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

This message was edited by high fly on 5-4-04 @ 3:31 PM