Tonight on Larry King: Woodward’s Disingenuous Attempt to Rehabilitate Himself
CNN just offered a sneak preview of Bob Woodward’s interview with Larry King tonight on CNN. This is what Woodward says:
The day of the indictment, I read the charges against Libby, and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure on all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff to New York Times reporter Judy Miller. I went whoa whoa, because I knew I learned about this in mid-June, a week, ten days before. Then I say something’s up. There’s a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this. Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode…
There’s an easy explanation for why Fitzgerald didn’t know about this vital piece of information – because Woodward intentionally sought to keep it from him. The only person known to have had information regarding Woodward’s knowledge about Plame was Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. And Woodward specifically told Pincus not to reveal that information to anyone:
[Pincus] believed as far back as 2003 that Bob Woodward had some involvement in the case but he did not pursue the information because Woodward asked him not to. “He asked me to keep him out of the reporting and I agreed to do that,” Pincus said today.
Let’s recap. First, Woodward told a fellow colleague about his information on Plame but instructed him not to share; then, he failed to disclose this information to his editors at the Post in order to — in his words — avoid a subpoena; then, he criticized Fitzgerald’s investigation; and finally, after failing to disclose his knowledge and realizing Fitzgerald was not aware of it, he sniffed a great story and went into “aggressive reporting mode.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you commit a “journalistic sin.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Disingenous is a bit generous, don’t you think, Faiz?
November 21st, 2005 at 6:32 pmYeah, TP doesn’t like to come out and use terms like “Lie” and “Liar” and “Lying” and “Liar liar pants on fire”
November 21st, 2005 at 6:53 pmThanks for the catch Zookeeper. We’ve corrected the headline.
November 21st, 2005 at 6:55 pmFaiz,
You should go with
“Tonight on Larry King: Bob Woodward Lies in an Attempt to Rehabilitate Himself”
November 21st, 2005 at 7:02 pmSo if this is a taped “Larry King Live” show, I guess that means there won’t be any callers who could ask Woodward some potentially embarassing questions.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:17 pmwapo says…
*Post reporter Bob Woodward should not be vilified for protecting the identity of his source in this complex affair.*
i agree… vilifying him is pointless… he should damn well be fired… why…? if for nothing else, failure to inform his boss of the fact that he had received extremely sensitive information from an anonymous source that could have potentially significant consequences down the line… that failure demonstrates enormous lack of professionalism if not outright insubordination which has destroyed his professional credibility and seriously damaged that of his employer… woodward violated a very important credo of employment and the human species – never shit in your hat…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/11/fire-bob-woodward.html
November 21st, 2005 at 7:21 pmhow about if we put all of them up on the post office wall….
Woodward
Russert
Miller (and Bumiller and the rest of the Times)
Andrea Mitchell Greenspan
Joe Klein (who now just wants to put the lying behind us)
etc etc etc
Imagine what will happen when they manage to close down the internet and can control all the information again
November 21st, 2005 at 7:29 pmAlso, let’s not forget that
1. The owners, managers, and editors at WAPO are not free from responsibility. They knew he was in the WH inner circle. We did.
2. WAPO’s lies get spread across their media empire, just like the NY Times.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/washpost.asp
November 21st, 2005 at 7:34 pmBreaking News:
Larry King Found Alive.
-Resume with the mud flinging.
-GSD
November 21st, 2005 at 7:35 pmtell me again what responsibility bob had to his editor in this story? i’m not seeing the connection. the man said he didn’t want to get involved. he didn’t. I don’t know where in the journalist’s ethics manual it states that a journalist is required to disclose every bit of information that comes across their desk… in fact, how about ya’ll enlighten me on this one…
p@ – austin tx
November 21st, 2005 at 7:39 pmYes, is it really a surprise that he went on Larry King Live to re-spin. Larry hasn’t asked a hard question in….well, I’m 30 and I can’t remember one-not that I watch often-so, well, yeah, Booby figured he could persuade America that he was still the reporter who bought Nixon down. He still could yet bring down another Preznit…..
November 21st, 2005 at 7:40 pmwoodward violated a very important credo of employment and the human species – never shit in your hat…
LOL…
I think Woodward’s gearing up to write fantasy/fiction .. his explanations for why he “withheld” this information from his editors is laughable at best… and very insulting to anyone with even 2 brain cells firing.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:42 pmAnother crock from an egomaniac who lost sight of his profession and lost allcredibility .
November 21st, 2005 at 7:43 pmUm….well, only that, well, his newspaper has been carrying the administration’s water for a couple years now; and it turns out that he’s at the center of the storm even while he claimed just a few weeks ago even that this investigation amounted to only “gossip” and “chatter”. Hmm…you didn’t read the links at the top of the story did ya? Context. Ah…willful ignorance, can ya smell the thickness of unprocessed information in the air?
November 21st, 2005 at 7:45 pmPat in Texas,
Hmmm, you want a list of what Mr. Woodward did wrong? Let’s see if I can enlighten:
1. The reporter should not be the story
2. It is the reporter’s right to “protect” themselves by not doing a story. However, by doing a story and purposely leaving out key information that is relevant to the story in order to hide your involvement in the story is deceitful and irresponsible.
3. By not informing his editors of his involvement in the story his editors were not able to make the informed judgements that they are employed to make in regard to personal bias and slant (eg; Doing a puff piece on how great Widget Co. is and not revealing that you own a buttload of stock in Widget Co.).
4. He betrayed the trust of his readers which, in journalism, is professional suicide. How can his readers believe anything he says now?
I can go on but surely it is obvious to you know how Mr. Woodward screwed his own pooch.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pmOh, if only Larry was taking calls tonight.
Me: Yeah right, you came out from underneath your rock cause you just wanted to help Fitzgerald with the investigation?
Bull….
I believe that you started feeling the heat.
What did Rove’s lawyers provide Fitz that gave him pause right before he was set to be indicted, according to Isikoff who happened to prod you on Larry King on Fitzmas eve….
Larry King: Yeah Woody, when was the last time you had a good cannoli?
November 21st, 2005 at 8:06 pmThis is why Woodward got a 2-star smiting from the “Avenging Angel”.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:12 pm“Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode…”
“TO THE BATMOBILE!!!!”
November 21st, 2005 at 8:14 pmI think everyone who has purchased one of Mr. Woodward’s non-fiction books should go to their bookstore and request a refund. Since his integrity is shot they would have a very strong case for claiming fraud.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful!
November 21st, 2005 at 8:15 pmwhat a fool this man has turned out to be. he is shameful.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:15 pmWoodward doesn’t make any sense. In his Time interview he says he approached his source twice before asking for permission to release him and his source refused. So obviously the source did not want anybody including the prosecutor to know. So why approach the source again for the third time? What was different this time? All this time Woodward has been trying to dismiss the investigation. All this time he had knows about his source’s involvement. What changed now? I don’t think the news conference had anything to do with it.
Woodward is not being truthful.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:17 pmThis, surprisingly enough was NOT said by Woodward:
‘The day I heard Scott McClellan say that no one in the administration was involved in the leak, and that anyone who was involved would no longer be in the administration, I went whoa whoa, because I knew I was told by an Administration official in mid-June. Then I say something’s up. There’s a piece that the White House Press Secretary does not have in all of this. Then I went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode…’
Instead of aggressively reporting the various times the White House (including the President) denied knowledge of its involvement in the leak, Bob Woodward remained silent. He was only prompted to speak when a member of the Bush Administration was going to be held accountable for his actions in front of the Grand Jury.
Bob Woodward seems to worry much more about helping the Bush Administration than informing the people.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:18 pmhttp://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com
I have made my peace with Bob on my blog….here was a piece when I was still sore about him being a weasel and all…
Hush Little Baby…
don’t you say a word about National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley revealing to you that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. I knew it, now you know that I knew you knew it, and that was why I invited you to testify, under oath.
It’s OK, crying like you did during your two hours of testimony on Monday. Testifying under oath can be scary, but it is now clear to everyone that you only look out for number one, lack integrity and are highly overrated as a journalist watchdog of the people.
Even though Bob Woodward apologized to his editor today for lying to him, he still owes the American people an apology for attempting to withhold critically important information from me and the Grand Jury.
He says he was “afraid,” but that didn’t stop him from going on TV where he criticized my investigation, called me a “junkyard dog prosecutor,” outright lied to Larry King and deliberately misled the American people about his knowledge and involvement in the affair.
Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob…Bob! You have just been grouped into a category of disgraced journalists that currently includes Judy Miller, Jayson Blair, Bob Greene, Janet Cooke and others.
What a shame, many people have been remarking that they have seen you slowly change over the past few years so I guess we shouldn’t say it is any surprise. In this case, “principle” and fear should yield to the need to protect covert agents who are serving our country. They are also are due an apology from YOU.
No wonder Bernstein broke up with you. What is your “Plan of Attack” now, smart guy?
November 21st, 2005 at 8:19 pmWow, all I can think is what happened to the journalist who exposed Nixon. When did he fall to his knees and become this admininstration’s BJ boy? Really sad.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:30 pmNan,
no he isn’t……He’s lost all credibility.
I’m gonna watch the show tonight though, just to see how deep he digs himself in.
Oh and Mr. Fitzgerald, I love your website…
November 21st, 2005 at 8:39 pmOne question, where did Harriet go?
Wow, Bingo – it’s funny to watch when one of your own strays off the reservation. Has Carl Bernstein been conspicuously quiet, or what?
November 21st, 2005 at 8:41 pmI read somewhere that Bernstein did comment on this.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:46 pmI’ll go find it and bring it back.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001523719
He’s basically defending his lesser half…
November 21st, 2005 at 8:49 pmGreat point Jeff. Aggressive reporting mode indeed.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:51 pmSorry Bob, you’re already a loser and you’re damn lucky you’re not an indicted one.
A legecy comes full circle.
New on EWM: “Society of Co-opted Journalists Presents Inaugural Judy Miller Award to Bob Woodwardâ€
November 21st, 2005 at 9:04 pmHe again states that he forced his source to go to Fitz…
November 21st, 2005 at 9:07 pmI don’t buy that at all.
Woodward is so compromised….he’s way too embedded in this administration and the book deals his access represents. You’ve come a long way, Bob……a long way down.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:18 pmAbsolutely unbelievable. First question that comes to mind is, did Pincus then not disclose his conversation with Woodward to Fitzgerald? Would that then put Pincus in legal jeopardy? Woodward now says he went into “incredibly aggressive reporting mode” when he heard about the first disclosure taking place June 2003? If he himself knew something in 2003 why didn’t he report on it? Was he keeping quiet about it because that’s what his sources wanted? And over the 2 years that the story progressed, why didn’t he report on any of it?
This is Judy Miller all over again. He should just resign and go away. His story is less credible the more he talks.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:24 pmI’m a Brit living and working in Poland, its after 3.40 am here, and yes I’m watching this Woodward interview because I’m interested in American politics, but boy this case is a tad confusing! I have a few questions if someone would care to enlighten me :)
Libby is under investigation for passing on Plame’s name to journalist Robert Novak – yes?
There is “another source”, someone else apart from Libby who put the finger on Plame via Woodward – yes?
Why is Woodward saying the revelation of this source is “of no consequence”?
What’s the buzz from your side of the pond about the name of this source? Is Stephen Hadley firm favourite?
Any help would be gratefully appreciated :)
November 21st, 2005 at 9:39 pmhey brit working in poland
November 21st, 2005 at 9:51 pmlibby to novak correct
#2 yes
#3 woodward is a closet bush supporter for reasons that are baffling to a great many of us. I can only attribute this to many other 60’s folks who wanted peace and love but sold out for money and greed first. now they are baby boomers with no where to go but straight to hell
#4 some say hadley. i think it may have been rove rice or even cheney himself.
buzz is simple. we have had a phony corrupt administration propagating a myth about itself for a few years now. every american who supports them including the media are running scared right now. what is really at stake in america is true democracy itself.
hope that helps and stay in touch
Whatever credibility Woodward may have had in the past, he has stayed too long at the fair. He should have gone home long ago.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:52 pmSorry Woody, I was scratching my ass when you said that…what did you say?
Ahh yes, you’re a fine American.
Next on Anderson Cooper 360……
Same old…
November 21st, 2005 at 10:07 pmRobert Pooolemos – thanks for the feedback. What with this scandal and the Iraq War debate flaring up again this past week, American politics certainly isn’t boring!
Having said that, this is more than “just” politics. Setting aside the hilarious fact Bush has problems finding doors that will open, his insular “we come first, screw the rest of the world” attitude is costing lives and making your great country the laughing stock of the world.
It’s up to you folks to get him and his cronies out before his 3 years are up, the world can’t afford to sit the time out, it’s still long enough for him to cause more considerable damage and misery for all of us.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:17 pmTalking of Anderson Cooper 360 Carrie, what WAS the story behind Aaron Brown’s sacking and the dumping of Newsnight.
I enjoyed that programme, especially as Brown wasn’t afraid to ask awkward, difficult questions about the Bush administration – perhaps the real reason for his demise?
November 21st, 2005 at 10:20 pmYeah, I loved Aaron Brown…..he was on here at 10 pm, a nice, quiet, sedate newscast. Kind of like having your older brother tucking you into bed at night. I miss him.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:40 pmI read somewhere that in an effort to attract a younger, hipper crowd Jon Klein, president of CNN decided to replace him with Anderson Cooper.
Cooper’s just too hyper for me at that time slot.
re #5 I swear in an earlier promo for Larry King Live, it was mentioned that veiwers could call in and ask questions…I imagine “Bob the Woodworm” put the kabosh on that….Aaron Brown… bahahahah I remember him telling us “How lucky we are to have a president of Bush’s pedegree in the oval office”… Aaron Brown was the original Bushco lackey.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:51 pmI think Bob Woodward is about to find out what happens when you step in shit with one foot and glue with the other.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:05 pmAll the president’s men.
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:01 amBob Woodward has lost 100% of his source credability. But why? 1) Has he pulled a Reagan, and simply become less politically progressive as he’s become older? 2) Did he pull a different kind of Reagan, and simply “forget” to do the right thing? 3) Has he sold his soul to the GOP powers that be, on an ego trip?
November 22nd, 2005 at 2:17 amClearly Woodward should have kept quiet. This doesn’t get Libby off the hook but sure makes Fitzgerald’s entire investigation look like a fraud. It was already hobbled by the fact that Joseph Wilson is effectively “unpresentable” in court. (On account of all the lies he’s told.) Now people are gonna ask “Fitzgerald has been investigating this crap for about two years and is only now figuring out who Bob Woodward and Armitage are?” The side note in the matter is that it makes Leonard Downie Jr. look like a complete imbecile whose staff doesn’t even bother to keep informed. And it doesn’t help when Downie goes on national TV and himself makes that utterly obvious.
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:11 amIt’s all quite simple. Woodward has become part of what he brought down in the Nixon admin. He’s become part of “them”. It’s sad enough that Woodward has allowed himself to be corrupted, but it’s really even more telling about how corrupt the media in general have become. They are nothing but tools for the people in power. Any illusions they may have held about journalistic integrity or any such lofty ideals are now totally trashed. I just wish that the American people would wake up and demand better from the 4th Estate.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:10 amLord Byron once said, “Men think highly of those who rise rapidly in the world; whereas nothing rises quicker than dust, straw, and feathers.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Marie #36 said it even better: “he has stayed too long at the fair. He should have gone home long ago.”
I mean, from my own experience, no one is thought less of than the drunk who is the last one to leave the bar.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:17 amThere are sooo many Spin Stories out there. Thats what is saving the Current Administration.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:27 am(The no-Spin Zone?) Give me a break.
In response to:
Comment (#47) by Jennty — November 22, 2005 @ 9:10 am
“Woodward has become part of what he brought down in the Nixon admin. He’s become part of “themâ€.”
I think when people look back at the 1960s and early 1970s they fail to consider that much, if not most, of the now legendary baby boomer conduct was motivated by selfishness as opposed to altruism (i.e. the war protestor who simply wanted to save his own tail from being drafted). When I learned that “Deep Throat” was the No. 2 man at the FBI and someone Woodward describes as his “mentor,” Woodward’s behavior over the past 8 or 9 years began to make sense.
It seems to me, his primary motivation always has been social climbing. By the early 70s, a large part of “the establishment” had grown weary of Nixon and wanted him out. Woodward found an opportunity to engage in some social climbing by serving as a waterboy to one of the highest ranking officials in the FBI and looking like a populist hero at the same time.
Times change and, since 2001, we’ve had a one-party system of government. Thus, social climbing currently requires carrying water for those in charge of the Republican party. When you look at it this way, Woodward hasn’t changed at all. He’s always been desperately trying to be one of “them.”
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:36 amThe Overthrow Of The
American Republic, Part 76
London Bombings – To Save Bush/Blair/Queen?
by Sherman H. Skolnick
http://www.cloakanddagger.de
http://www.skolnicksreport.com
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html
7-7-5
We might get some early insight into the violence in London by considering some timeline items.
As of July, 2005, the Chicago Special Federal Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, reportedly had witnesses who already testified before the Special Federal Grand Jury in the outing of a deep cover CIA operative, Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson 4th, who had publicly criticized George W. Bush for using false data as to Saddam supposedly using uranium, yellow cake it is called, from Niger.
Two or more grand jury witnesses ostensibly testified that George W. Bush himself was aware that Bush White House chief honcho, Karl Rove, was reportedly going to leak data as to Valerie Plame, as a reprisal against her husband for publicly panning Bush.
The federal grand jury already had subpoenas reportedly served and/or testimony received, from and/or about Jeff Gannon, male prostitute that visited some 200 times, on one-day passes, at Bush’s White House apartment, according to U.S. Secret Service records. Those documents, however, do not reflect whether Gannon departed the White House after one day each trip made.
Some witnesses assert that Gannon received the data as to Valerie Plame directly from George W. Bush himself and that reputed journalist Gannon ostensibly conveyed it to
Time Magazine reporter Mathew Cooper, who agrees to now testify after being threatened with contempt of court, and convey the same reportedly to New York Times reporter Judith Miller now jailed for refusing to testify before the Special Federal Grand Jury.
[As to Jeff Gannon, visiti our archives at rense.com as to our series as to Bush and the male prostitute, "The Gannon Cannon".
Fitzgerald also subpoenaed the records of transmissions from Air Force One, Bush's airplane. Unless the subpoena is disobeyed, the resultant items might seem to support other testimony that George W. Bush himself is subject to prosecution for a Federal Criminal Offense in blowing the "cover" of Valerie Plame.
A note about espionage protocol. Covert espionage operatives are usually informed ahead of time of an upcoming violent event, such as a high-level bombing or political assassination, by a strange item in the mass media. A few examples.
Just prior to the public execution of President John F. Kennedy while traveling in an open car, Time Magazine ran a ghastly drawing on its cover showing JFK looking like a dead man, a ghost, sitting in his rocking chair because of his long ailing back.
Similarly, Time Magazine, just prior to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, ran a cover story depicting Bobby as a foolish child in a polka dot baby's outfit.
The day before the attempted assassination of newly inauguated President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, was a boxed in item in many mass media newspapers. It stated that just released data shows that a member of British royalty, a prominent militaristic Tory, secretly traveled across the U.S. in 1968, to elicit American elite aid to overthrow the British Labour Government in London.
Covert intelligence dirty tricksters are trained to watch for these tip-offs of upcoming bloodshed events.
So it should come as no surprise that on July 4, 2005, the Queen's news trumpet, the Chicago Tribune, published a possible upcoming mass murder tip-off, of the then upcoming London bombings of July 7, 2005. (According to ownership disclosures required by postal regulations, each newspaper must publish once a year, often way back behind the grocery page, details of the news outlets ownership. The top British royals are major owners of Tribune Company, parent firm of a presslord empire that includes the Chicago Tribune. This media empire gets their pulp and other newsprint from Canadian Jesuit facilities, by way of a perpetual contract originally signed by the King of England in the 19th Century.)
The lengthy Chicago Tribune story was headlined "The queen's eyes in Chicago" July 4, 2005. (We shall attempt to attach herewith a copy.) Notice this item referring to a date 1901:
"1901. After going bankrupt building a Chicago elevated transit line, Charles Yerkes WENT TO ENGLAND AND BUILT THE FIRST SUBSURFACE TRANSIT LINE IN LONDON THAT EVOLVED INTO THE CURRENT UNDERGROUND TRAIN SYSTEM." (Emphasis added.)
To farflung covert dirty tricksters was this the tip-off of upcoming events required by espionage procedures? Advance warning of the London bombings?
Prior to September11, 2001, namely on Saturday, August 18, 2001, the New York Times published a strange story about mysterious squatters secretly living on the 91st floor of one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Following 9-11, neither the New York Times nor any other media outlet mentioned this strange prior story. We later attached an actual copy from the New York Times archives to one of our stories in this series, Overthrow of the American Republic.
Notice what was pending at the time public attention was diverted by the London bombings including of their very deep in the ground subway:
(1) An unofficial , that is Ad Hoc Committe of the U.S. House of Representatives was quietly considering Resolutions of Impeachment against the occupant and resident of the White House, George W. Bush. Includrd were charges of treason for starting a war without vote of Congress. and on knowingly false and fraudulent data. Including the Bush White House being blackmailed out of U.S. Military secrets by his homosexual activities reportedly with Jeff Gannon and also the once longtime Mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, Victor Ashe, who left his Knoxville post and was by Bush shipped out of the U.S. to be the Ambassador to Poland, and thus unavailable for questioning by Congressmen. This part of the homosexual media and poilitical underground has been used by the Red Chinese Secret Police to blackmail U.S. weapons secrets out of the Bush White House. [Visit "Overthrow", part 24 http://www.skolnicksreport.com ]
The Ad Hoc Impeachment Resoloution Committee is apparently bi-partisan composed of 40 Democrats and 30 Republicans.
Israeli Intelligence, The Mossad, apparently told the London police authorities in advance of the London bombings what might happen. Because a great number of London security police were in Scotland to protect Bush and Blair at G-8 Super Bankers Conference, only a skeleton police force was available in London. So The Mossad warning was not considered. To clean up possible mention of the bombings being a high-level inside job of a portion of the Anglo-American Aristocracy to protect Bush/Bair/Queen, the London authorities reversed the apparent actual facts and said that the London police informed The Mossad ahead of time.
The Impeachment of Bush Resolutions were reportedly set to be revealed on July 11, 2005.
(2.) Other accusations were quietly pending against Queen of England stooge and scapegoat Tony Blair at the time of the London bombings.
(3.) Some of our websites from as far back as 2000, have posted the document showing that the Bushies have a joint account with Queen Elizabeth 2nd amounting to One Hundred Billion Dollars, in the Queen’s private bank, Coutts Bank London, as shown, arranged by the secret code of Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve. Daddy Bush was a private business partner with Saddam Hussein and shared many billions of dollars shaken down from the weak Persian Gulf oil-soaked sheikdoms. [Visit http://www.skolnicksreport.com item "The Secrets of Timothy McVeigh".]
Saddam retains (whether actually in U.S. custody or a double in custody or Saddam kept in some foreign embassy); a large financial interest in the Bushie-Queen joint account.
According to the December 19, 2001 issue of London Financial Times, the Queen ordered the head of her private bank to become a part of the Bushie worldwide enterprise, Carlyle Group.
Shortly after the 9-11 high-level inside job, knocking down the Twin Towers with internal explosives, we posted a story that Israeli intelligence, The Mossad, wanted to inform the Bush White House and the Bush Justice Department of the upcoming violence in Lower Manhattan. Upon being rebuffed, the Israelis used the French CIA to so inform Bush and his Justice Department which likewise refused to consider the prior warning.
Stories published in Europe and mostly censored by the U.S. monopoly press, detailed how the Spanish Secret Political Police apparently orchestrated the March, 2005, bombings of trains in Madrid that killed hundreds. Spain’s spy agency sought to blame it on Basque and other extremists. Actually it was done on behalf of the re-emerging crowned heads of Europe, once called the Hapsburgs, including Spain King Juan Carlos.
The Spanish King, late in 2004, met with Bush at Bush’s ranch along with Vicente Fox, President of Mexico. Bush secretly agreed to surrender to Mexico’s sovereignty parts of southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Such a secret arrangement is not only violative of the U.S. Constitution but reverses centures of worldwide history. Hoping to survive, a nation’s leader does not seek to give away territory taken over from a previous war. The parts of U.S. states were won by the U.S. as a result of the U.S.-Mexico War of 1849. George W. Bush commits treason to reverse the same.
Some in the United Kingdom are trying to start a groundswell, that Moslems resident in England, be rounded up and thrown out of the country at once. This apparently a result of local media starting a vicious blame campaign without considering the London bombings being a high-level dirty bloody trick of a portion of the Anglo-American Aristocracy.
(4.) As an indication of a high-level plot, not involving Moslems except possibly as patsies and dupes, the United Kingdom authorities, about a hour before the London bombings, cut off most if not all cell phone traffic. Also arbitrarily cut-off was a great deal of U.K. out-going internet traffic. As part of the BIG LIE, are the U.K. authorities, whitewashing Bush/Blair?Queen, going to deny this as well?
QUESTIONS:
Can George W. Bush, quilty of treason and other offenses against the American people and the U.S. Constitution, be as a practical matter, subject to Impeachment in the midst of the London bombings furor?
Will the commonfolk in England be understanding of possible expected details of a high-level inside job, orchestrated by the Secret Political Police for and on behalf of the British Monarchy?
Can the U.S. and the U.K. avoid martial law hysteria whipped up by the Aristocracy to cancel the U.S. Constitution and the unwritten British “Constitution”?
Do you have any ideas to aid and assist independent bloggers, condemned by the Establishment as being merely “Junkyard Dogs”, for fighting off the BIG LIE as to the true nature of the London bombings?
Is the only remedy now to consider the possibility of chopping off the heads of the Anglo-American Aristocracy for these brazen, barbaric crimes done to consolidate their power?
(We shall attempt to attach July 4, 2005 story of Chicago Tribune.)
Lots more coming. Stay tuned.
=====================================
Mr. Skolnick’s Reports are posted and archived at http://www.skolnicksreport.com Together with his co-authored The Middle-Finger News, they are posted and archived through
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/skolnickdatapage.html
also posted and archived through
http://www.cloakanddagger.de
Skolnick is co-host with Lenny Bloom on a growing, popular maximum power Internet radio program, FM-quality worldwide, ON-LINE LIVE and ARCHIVED at http://www.cloakanddagger.de CHECK SCHEDULE for time it is on.
Recently published, the book, “Ahead of the Parade” by Sherman H. Skolnick, A Who’s Who of Treason & High Crimes—Exclusive Details of Fraud & Corruption of the Monopoly Press, the Banks, the Bench and the Bar, & the Secret Political Police.
Can be ordered U.S./Canada 1-800-861-7899.
Can also supposedly be ordered through amazon.com HOWEVER recently they blockaded their own marketing and sales of this controversial book by demanding twice the listed price.
About once a year is published a heavy packet of printed stories by Skolnick. To get a copy, send $5.00 (U.S. FUNDS ONLY) plus a stamped, self-addressed BUSINESS size envelope [ # 10 envelope, 4-1/8 x 9-1/2 ] WITH THREE U.S. FIRST CLASS STAMPS ON IT, to Citizen’s Committee To Clean Up The Courts, Sherman H. Skolnick, Chairman, 9800 So. Oglesby Ave., Chicago IL 60617-4870.
Want to get on Skolnick’s e-mail list to get, soon as issued, Skolnick’S Reports, and The Middle-Finger News, or to stay on the e-mail list if you are already there? To find out how, contact skolnick@ameritech.net BE SURE TO PUT IN SUBJECT LINE OF E-MAIL, “I want to get on e-mail list”.
NOTE: Getting on my e-mail list is NOT the same as being a “member” of http://www.cloakanddagger.de
ALSO NOTE: we no longer have a recorded phone message. Our reports are on http://www.skolnicksreport.com and two other websites–see LINKS on our HOME PAGE.
The queen’s eyes in Chicago
British Consulate celebrates 150 years here.
`Let’s just say things have grown in complexity.’
By Mike Conklin
Tribune staff reporter
July 4, 2005
Americans are celebrating Independence Day, but the British Consulate in Chicago also has something special to toast. This is the 150th year for the diplomatic mission here, and two days in 2005 in the life of Deputy Consul Jonathan Darby show just how far its reach has extended in that time.
On the first day, Darby was in Liberal, Kan., in the far southwest corner of the state, to hobnob with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and other VIPs. Darby was Britain’s official representative to the community’s Pancake Day, an annual festival it celebrates jointly with Olney, England, about 45 miles outside of London.
Twenty-four hours later, Darby was in a penitentiary in the southeast corner of Nebraska, listening to complaints from a British subject serving a life sentence. Monitoring Brits in Midwestern U.S. prisons is also part of the Chicago consulate’s responsibilities.
Pancakes in Kansas? Prisoners in Nebraska? Those certainly weren’t part of the job description in 1855, when Queen Victoria appointed John E. Wilkins to represent the mighty British empire in the new, promising hub on the U.S. frontier known as Chicago.
A lawyer and Canadian mercantile agent, Wilkins’ principal duty as the queen’s lone delegate here was to coordinate food exports to a homeland fighting the Crimean War. Occasionally, he was called on to perform marriages, register births, locate missing persons, arrange trips for the indigent and deliver mail to British citizens.
The queen took an interest in the American diplomatic outpost. In 1872, she authorized sending thousands of books from London as a donation in the wake of the 1871 Great Fire.
When the books arrived, Chicago used them to establish one of the country’s first free municipal libraries.
“To say that things have changed between then and now is a description that simply does not do the history justice,” said Andrew Seaton, current British consul general to Chicago and a career diplomat with 30 years in foreign officeservice. “Let’s just say things have grown in complexity.”
Today, Seaton oversees a staff of 50 professionals working from a suite taking an entire floor in the Wrigley Building. They cover a 13-state, Midwest region that dwarfs Great Britain both geographically and economically. The consulate promotes trade and investment, arranges cultural and governmental exchanges, handles visas, and, as Darby’s schedule reflects, represents British interests in an assortment of other ways.
The Chicago office is one of seven consulates in the U.S. and, as part of Great Britain’s diplomatic mission to this country, answers to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. The embassy presents British political policy at the national level.
“We do not operate in a vacuum,” Seaton said. “Responding to needs is an important part of what we do.”
Busy times
Last year, the consulate here processed 18,500 visas, answered 8,200 telephone inquiries from British citizens, handled 1,200 cases requiring assistance and issued 109 emergency passports.
“There are something like 73 foreign consulates in Chicago, and, from my view, the British are at the top of the list both for volume of work and how they do it,” said J.D. Bindenagel, a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations vice president and former U.S. ambassador to Germany. “I’m sure many think this world is nothing but formal balls and cutting ribbons, but I guarantee it’s not.”
The trade team here of 20 is one of the largest for any of the British consul general offices in the U.S.. They work both sides of the street — finding markets here for British concerns and encouraging American companies to locate in the United Kingdom.
“Chicago and the Midwest are seen as very, very fertile ground for us,” said Seaton, who came here in 2003. “A big reason is the great diversity we see here, in industries as well as people. Much of what we do is simple matchmaking.”
The consulate’s district is composed of 13 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
“I think a lot of their work [in the consulate] goes unnoticed because, quite frankly, the British tend to blend into this country so well,” said Christine Brenkus, executive director of the British-American Chamber of Commerce for the Midwest, a Chicago-based organization independent of the consul general’s office. “People probably would be surprised to know there are 800 British-owned companies in Illinois alone.”
The official relationship between Chicago and Great Britain extends beyond business and visas. British police officials were here recently in one of many exchanges to study our law-enforcement practices. The same initiatives take place in education, where our English as a Second Language programs are of interest.
Chicago has an active Sister City relationship with Birmingham, an industrial city in the west Midlands region of England, which has led to joint projects between the University of Birmingham and Loyola University and the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Among other educational pairings: The University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.
The consul general’s office is frequently called upon to help coordinate VIP visits, such as Prime Minister Tony Blair’s trip in 1999, when he addressed the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, or even last month’s visit by the English national soccer team for a Soldier Field match.
The royal family causes ripples for the Chicago office, whether it’s talking to callers — both British and American — irate over the latest tabloid report or lining up a golf match for Prince Andrew, which it did several years ago when he was here for a promotion.
This is nothing new: In 1941, then Chicago consul general Lewis Bernays was asked to entertain the Duke and Duchess of Windsor — the duke formerly had been King Edward VIII before abdicating for his American-born duchess, Wallis Simpson — during a three-hour layover here between trains.
The Windsors were headed for a Canadian ski trip and, while the duchess retired to a private room, Bernays and a driver took the duke up and down the lakefront in an enclosed automobile for a tour of the city. Meanwhile, others from the consulate transferred the Windsors’ mountain of luggage, plus three Cairn terriers and six personal aides, to another train station.
Impact of Diana’s death
No one who worked in the Chicago office will ever forget the death of Princess Diana in 1997, when American mourners left more than a ton of flowers in front of the Wrigley Building that were subsequently distributed to hospitals and senior centers.
“Everywhere we went, people would come up to you and say, `You must be so sad,’” recalled Gus Noble, who worked in the consulate then and now is executive director of the Illinois St. Andrew Society, a not-for-profit organization to preserve Scottish heritage. “It wasn’t as if we knew her personally. We became professional mourners that time.”
The feelings haven’t always been so warm about the British. In 1927, former Mayor William “Big Bill” Thompson, running on an “America First” ticket to regain his City Hall office, got the Chicago Public Schools superintendent bumped from his job for being “a stool pigeon of King George” by favoring pro-British books in the classrooms.
At the time, Thompson generated a campaign to capitalize on a wave of anti-British sentiment existing then in the U.S. and rode it into office. A Chicago court eventually overturned the school board’s decision to fire the superintendent, however.
“Over the 150 years, our office has been sort of a litmus test for relations between our countries,” Seaton said, “and, for sure, there have been wrinkles. For the most part, they’ve been very, very positive. I am happy to report that’s the way they are now.”
- – -
Great moments in Chicago-U.K. history
1855: John E. Wilkins, a lawyer and agent for a Quebec mercantile firm, was appointed first consul general in Chicago.
1860: Here’s how the Prince of Wales, later to become King Edward VII, was introduced to the City Hall press corps by Mayor John Wentworth at a Tremont Hotel reception: “Boys, this is the prince. Prince, these are the boys.”
1861: Wilkins opened an office in St. Louis to establish the neutrality of British citizens in that area during the Civil War.
1869: London theatrical producer Lydia Thompson presented her “British Blonde” comedy revue in the Crosby Opera House, a show that introduced burlesque to Chicago with “half-clothed” women, according to outraged Chicago Times publisher Wilbur Storey.
1872: Books from the British, including Queen Victoria, sent after the Great Fire of 1871 prompted Chicago to found its public library, a first for this city and one of the earliest in the U.S. for a major metropolitan area.
1889: Inspired by a visit to London’s Toynbee Hall settlement house the previous year, Jane Addams founded Hull House in Chicago’s West Side slums.
1892: Englishman Samuel Insull arrived in Chicago to establish a utilities empire for Thomas Edison that lasted into the 1920s and included Commonwealth Edison, People’s Gas and the city’s electric-powered transit system.
1901: After going bankrupt building a Chicago elevated transit line, Charles Yerkes went to England and built the first subsurface train line in London that evolved into its current underground train system.
1909: Gordon Selfridge, who started in retailing at Marshall Field’s in Chicago, returned to London to start Selfridge’s, which grew into a world-famous department store chain.
1920: Chicago business leader and Sears Roebuck chairman Julius Rosenwald purchased Encyclopedia Britannica, the legendary, Scottish-born publication, and moved the headquarters from London to Chicago.
1929: Winston Churchill, as ex-chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke to the Commercial Club of Chicago. This was the first of several public appearances Churchill made here.
1946: Mayor Edward Kelly, plus a blue-ribbon committee, was aboard the first post-World War II commercial airline flight to London to meet with United Nations officials about locating their headquarters here. (They were unsuccessful.)
1959: Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh made a 14-hour official stop here aboard the royal yacht Britannia to attend the Chicago International Trade Fair, which commemorated the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They were hosted by Mayor Richard J. Daley and Conrad Hilton in a black-tie ball.
1966: John Lennon of the Beatles apologized in a Chicago news conference for his remark that “the Beatles are more popular than Jesus.” The comment drew worldwide criticism.
1975: Englishman Bill Foulkes, a Manchester United soccer legend, was named coach of the Chicago Sting, the city’s new professional team in the North American Soccer League. Almost a dozen English players signed to play for the team in the first season.
1976: Edward Heath, former British prime minister, guest-conducted the Chicago Symphony Orchestra as part of a benefit concert.
1993: Lord Mayor Paul Tilsley, of Birmingham, England, signed a Sister City agreement with Mayor Richard M. Daley.
1996: A visit to Chicago by Princess Diana drew a whopping 504 requests for press credentials from Chicago and worldwide media outlets.
1999: Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed the Economic Club of Chicago.
– Mike Conklin
Copyright © 2005,Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0507040078jul04,1,1518517.story
Disclaimer
Email This Article
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:53 am#50 I like that line of thought. I think for the most part you are spot on in your characterization of the Baby Boomers. It’s all been greed greed greed. In that context you’re right Woodward has always been about what’s right for him rather that plain “What’s right”. In retrospect, I thought too highly of the man.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:07 amWoodward keeps saying there was no crime because Plame’s identity was leaked “so casually”.
I kept waiting for Larry King to ask him, don’t you think you could have been used as a stooge by this administration, with whom you’ve become too imbedded?
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:13 amWhat are your thoughts of Patrick J. Fitzgerald .
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 amOh, guys, lay off ole Woody, willya? His style of operation is just the way things are done today. And welcome to American journalism!
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:43 amI-RIGHT-I and MIGHTY APHRODITE are KKKers. Check out Post No. 188 here: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/22/schmidt-marine/
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 pmWhat you are witnessing in this country today is unbridled capitalism. The mainstream media is not immune to this phenomenon. Now even the journalists (with the exception of a select few) are for sale.
Just as you cannot, in a free society, have unbridled freedom (rape and murder at will, sex with children, kiddie porn, all drug use 100% legal) you cannot have unbridled capitalism. The results are just as devestating and on a much wider scale.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:48 amA Phone Call To The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco
persoonlijk | Other | 24 November 2005 | 17:44:52
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation.
CALLER – Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.
CALLER – That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.
CALLER – What are these assets composed of?
MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.
CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.
CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.
CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?
MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.
CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?
MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.
CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.
CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.
CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.
CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.
CALLER – Where did they go?
MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.
CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?
MR. SUPINSKI – No
CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?
MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.
CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?
MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.
CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation’s money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?
MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.
CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?
MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.
CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.
CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes
CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?
MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.
CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?
MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.
CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?
MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).
CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.
/www.freedomfinancialconsultants.com/declaration.htm
CALLER – Have there been Supreme Court Cases?
MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure.
CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]
MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.
CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?
MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.
CALLER – What is the solution?
MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.
CALLER – Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $20.00 of unleaded gas @ $3.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?
MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.
CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.
CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?
MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.
CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn’t the punishment of treason death?
MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.
CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.
MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.
CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.
MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.
CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.
MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.
From Dan Benham d.benham@worldnet.att.net
November 24th, 2005 at 3:17 pm2 Things…
1) How can I see the last 40 minutes of the Erik / Tammy Menedez freak show which was pre-empted by an Airplane emergency landing in Boston?
2)If I see Bob Woodwards face on the Larry King show one more time – I may consider hanging myself
December 21st, 2005 at 12:39 pmLuxury toys for billionaire with photos and videos are on :
http://www.europaluxury.com
For ultra rich only…
April 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pmmontreal hotels…
curling adherer Nugent indispensably whine …
January 16th, 2007 at 9:20 pm