Bush tapping journalists?
January 4, 2006 10:05 PM   Subscribe

Bush tapping journalists?
“As reported below, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell – based on some information she clearly hasn’t yet made public – is asking if Bush specifically wiretapped CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. The fact that the question was asked so publicly and so specifically means that Mitchell knows something.”
posted by specialk420 (76 comments total)
Howdy, I'm a typo and I just wanted to say that you are busted.
posted by wah at 10:08 PM on January 4, 2006

Oh, and Texas just won the national championship of college football in heroic fashion.

Texas wins, Bush loses.

Film at 1:09 a.m.
posted by wah at 10:09 PM on January 4, 2006

i can't get over this...they changed the transcript too--unbelievable. (and Andrea's had a hand in many recent things--she was one of the journalists fed the Plame info too)

And, of course, if Amanpour was tapped, all of Rubin's calls and emails were too (he worked for Clinton) along with all of her contacts all over the world.
posted by amberglow at 10:15 PM on January 4, 2006

Bust. hehehe... Busted.

It's time for the journalists to step up and start protecting their own and their profession - we all know they are doing this shit.
posted by specialk420 at 10:16 PM on January 4, 2006

As I undestand, Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, yes?
posted by theperfectcrime at 10:16 PM on January 4, 2006

I'd tap that bust. :-)
posted by bugmuncher at 10:20 PM on January 4, 2006

Damn, I forgot. I am a journalist too.

So, I'm a journalist, and I'd tap that bust....
posted by bugmuncher at 10:21 PM on January 4, 2006

all of Rubin's calls and emails were too

remember the Bolton nomination? and the unspecified NSA intercepts of US officials (present or former) that Bolton had requested and we never another word about?
posted by specialk420 at 10:21 PM on January 4, 2006

There is an update from NBC on Atrios.

As a (former) investigative journalist it looks a lot like they are sitting on something which they are still working on. I imagine they pulled the question from the transcript in an attempt to keep their powder dry and not tip off any other media, not realizing the blogosphere would be all over it.

At least that's what I'd have done.
posted by unSane at 10:22 PM on January 4, 2006

Um, so yeah, if this pans out then those illegal wiretaps are going to bury Bush.

And, for the record, I'd tap Christiane Amanpour.
posted by fenriq at 10:23 PM on January 4, 2006

specialk420 is right- except so many of them have just been little lap-dogs for so long, that it might take them a while to get their act together. This is what happens when they don't fight.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:31 PM on January 4, 2006

fenriq- I would love to believe that's true, but I've said that about everything else the guy has done, and he's still kicking. can we please have the revolution now?
posted by exlotuseater at 10:33 PM on January 4, 2006

But maybe she was like calling some Al Jazeera dude or something! You can't be too careful when our freedom is at stake.
posted by digaman at 10:39 PM on January 4, 2006

little lap-dogs

you mean like Bush junta favorite: Snakehead Andrea Mitchell? she gets a nickel for letting this one slip, at least.
posted by specialk420 at 10:39 PM on January 4, 2006

as usual: Laura Rozen is like bees on honey:

"So the NBC Amanpour-was-spied-on-by the Bush administration statement which I noted this morning was not random, it was information gathered in the course of reporting that NBC doesn't currently feel ready to report just yet? Jesus."
posted by specialk420 at 10:43 PM on January 4, 2006

From the interview specialk420 linked above: "MITCHELL: What do you think Americans really need to be worried about more? A terror attack or someone going into their hard drive and intercepting their emails?"

I know which one I'm more afraid of.

This is kind of my point. Almost without exception, they suck. Except Helen Thomas.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:51 PM on January 4, 2006

nah... the White(boy) House asked that NBC hold the information until after the mid term elections, due to it's sensitive nature.
posted by edgeways at 10:51 PM on January 4, 2006

Shame (for ShrubCo) that its damned near impossible to get a cat back in the bag once that sucker's breathed life on the outside (or its gotten loose on the intarnets!).
posted by fenriq at 10:57 PM on January 4, 2006

that slappy squishy sound you just heard is the shit hitting the fan
posted by pyramid termite at 10:59 PM on January 4, 2006

To all the anti-Bush crowd, don't count your chickens before they cross the road.

By the number of anti-Bush celebrations I've seen on this site, you'd think he'd been successfully impeached a dozen times, this term alone.

This does, however, appear to be the beginning of an interesting news story.
posted by I Love Tacos at 11:03 PM on January 4, 2006

Let me predict what will happen next:

1) Everyone will bitch and moan
2) No action will be taken against anyone with influence
2a) Some intern is fired (Optional)
3) Spying on journalists continues unabated
posted by Talez at 11:18 PM on January 4, 2006

This Guy would totally tap Christiane Amanpour...
posted by Meccabilly at 12:40 AM on January 5, 2006

At least this should make a few journalists take a more critical look at Bush.
posted by sacrilicious at 1:02 AM on January 5, 2006

At least this should make a few journalists take a more critical look at Bush.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha. The corporate scribes called "journalists" don't have critical thoughts.
posted by three blind mice at 1:28 AM on January 5, 2006

Yeah, you're probably right. What the hell happened to integrity?
posted by sacrilicious at 2:29 AM on January 5, 2006

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Is it easier yet?
posted by raaka at 3:27 AM on January 5, 2006

Does anyone know what the transcript is from? The interview hasn't aired yet?
posted by etaoin at 4:34 AM on January 5, 2006

Well, ok--the media seems to cooperate with the govt and not do their jobs. Not something we did not suspect.What is new (aside from spying on citizens!) is that NSA is now getting a heck of a lot of publicity and the spotlight on what they do and do more of is exactly what for years they have tryhied to avoid. As perhaps the largest of allintel agencies, who knew what about this organization till recently? FBI? sure. CIA? sure...but NSA? well they do something with electronics...but now we know more
posted by Postroad at 4:39 AM on January 5, 2006

And, for the record, I'd tap Christiane Amanpour.

Am I the only one who thinks she looks like Richard Ashcroft in drag?
posted by crank at 5:04 AM on January 5, 2006

The NYT and WaPo sat on an NSA story for over a year because of the WH.
How long has Mitchell and company known about this event and when will they come clean?
Mitchell is a partisan hack who regularly passes on Rove talking points unedited so it would be no surprise if she did the WH another "favor."
posted by nofundy at 5:35 AM on January 5, 2006

And, for the record, I'd tap Christiane Amanpour.

Would that be tap or tup?
posted by alumshubby at 6:14 AM on January 5, 2006

3) Spying on journalists continues unabated

I would agree, but people always seem to come to their senses when their own self-interest is involved. I can just see O'Reilly now: "But they're only tapping Al Qaeda! I -- Hey! So that's how the falafel thing got out!"
posted by fungible at 6:14 AM on January 5, 2006

Mitchell is a partisan hack who regularly passes on Rove talking points unedited so it would be no surprise if she did the WH another "favor."

Trying to get journalists to shut up? I think this kind of thing is the only time they actually do wake up--when it directly affects them, and the game they play with those in power turns out to be a crock.
posted by amberglow at 6:36 AM on January 5, 2006

...Throughout all of this, the media and insulated elitists in the political chattering classes have obediently portrayed the controversy in "he said, she said" terms, or terms that simply justify law-breaking. As the President promises to continue breaking the law, Katie Couric banters back and forth with Tim Russert about how the only people who care about this are "constitutional scholars" – not the American people. Bloviators like William Kristol write fawning congratulations to President Bush for trampling the constitution, and go on Fox News demanding to know why President Bill Clinton hadn't trampled the Constitution when he was in office. And the Democratic Leadership Council, undermining congressional Democrats who are courageously raising questions, actually says Bush' law-breaking is entirely justified, even though we haven't been given one justification that holds water. ...
posted by amberglow at 6:53 AM on January 5, 2006

Would that be tap or tup?

It's tap, as one does a keg of beer.
posted by psmealey at 6:57 AM on January 5, 2006

Take my wife, please!
posted by delmoi at 6:59 AM on January 5, 2006

Btw, Christiane Amanpour is married to James Rubin, at least according to wikipedia.
posted by delmoi at 7:07 AM on January 5, 2006

Mitchell is a partisan hack...

I would say lazy stenographer. It probably has the same effect at a certain level, but I think the issue goes more to incompetence than it does to intent.

I think the former is actually more corrossive. If you have partisan hacks posing as journalists, you can eventually expose them and get them booted out of the profession. But if journalists are just taking dictation from the spinmeisters and reprinting it without critique, analysis or verification, then it renders the whole profession untrustworthy and therefore irrelevant.
posted by psmealey at 7:07 AM on January 5, 2006

...Do you feel comfortable with the government spying on reporters for American-based news organizations, even if they are working abroad and are part of a chain that leads back to al-Qaeda? We don't, although we know there are many who would disagree with us. After all, some people say that Bush wanted to drop bombs on al-Jazeera.
Then there is the issue of Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, former official in the Clinton administration State Department. You may have forgotten (we did, frankly), but Rubin re-emerged in 2004 -- as a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry. Do husbands and wives use the same telephones and computers? Is the Pope German?
But frankly, the concept that scares us the most, as a journalist, goes back to that lovely quote from the Fox News spokeswoman at the very top of this post -- and the episode that inspired it. Because Christiane Amanpour was highest profile, and also the most forceful, critic of the media's pliancy toward Bush after the 9/11 attacks.
The next day, Fox blasts her as an "al-Qaeda spokeswoman." And two years later, we are left to wonder if she was spied upon by the American government. ...

posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on January 5, 2006

Damn, amberglow. How many blogs do you read in a day?

(That's not to say that I'm not giggling with glee at all of this . . .)
posted by JeffK at 7:41 AM on January 5, 2006

I defer to your analysis psmealey.
Lazy stenographer is a more accurate description.
I myself pointed out that she often repeats Rove talking points verbatim! d'oh!
posted by nofundy at 7:56 AM on January 5, 2006

But we all know CNN is in it with the turrorists! So is CeeBS! So is the Nur Yurk Times! Hell the only ones real Ammuricans can trust is Faux News and the Washington-FuckinMoonie-Times! Don't you people understand this!

This message brought to you by BushCo, Halliburton, Diebold, Brown & Root, Abramoff Lobbying-R-Us, and all their rich friends. They're doing a heckuva job.

"If you like Homeland Security, Gitmo, TIA, Abu Graib, secret courts, secret prisons, NSA wiretapping, hang on to your thumbscrews -- those are only the beginning."

Get your new 2006 model Constitution-O-Matic -- it slices, it dices, it shreds the Bill of Rights.
posted by mooncrow at 8:12 AM on January 5, 2006

I can't just see Bush listening in and then turning to Cheney like the ditz in that CNN commercial and saying: What about chetch-uh-nee-yuh?
posted by ao4047 at 8:16 AM on January 5, 2006

nice digging amberglow. cool how technology can be used to bust the motherf*ckers.
posted by specialk420 at 8:35 AM on January 5, 2006

Wow, it doesn't take much to get the tinfoil brigade in an uproar.

Have all of you stopped beating your wives?

Stick to substantiated information, there's plenty out there. Hell, stick to reported information, whether its substantiated or not. Wasn't it only yesterday that everyone was outraged over the misinformation fiasco in West Virginia?
posted by wabashbdw at 9:46 AM on January 5, 2006

That's right, wabash. It's totally tinfoil nuts to think the government is spying on american citizens for purposes unrelated to domestic security. Good catch.
posted by nobody at 9:54 AM on January 5, 2006

all of Rubin's calls and emails were too

I knew it.
posted by rubin at 10:01 AM on January 5, 2006

wabashbdw, what in the hell does a political problem that have to do with beating wives?

And not much? This isn't much? The possibility that Bush was using the NSA to domestically spy on members of the media who happened to be married to a high ranking Democrat? What IS a big deal to you then? What if Bush was caught raping a dead moose in the Oval Office? Would that be enough?
posted by fenriq at 10:15 AM on January 5, 2006

wabashbdw, what in the hell does a political problem that have to do with beating wives?

S/he's referring to the classic example of "begging the question." Unclear how much this applies here.

posted by nobody at 10:33 AM on January 5, 2006

I think wabashbdw's point is that a single question asked by a reporter in an interview -- a question that elicited no relevant information -- is a slim basis on which to assume Amanpour was monitored. We just don't know anything yet except that Mitchell thought the question was worth asking at the time -- maybe because NBC has evidence of this, or maybe because she was chasing a false rumor.

That all said, this story is obviously worth following carefully if it develops into something more. I would not be surprised if it were true.
posted by brain_drain at 10:59 AM on January 5, 2006

The possibility that Bush was using the NSA to domestically spy on members of the media..., etc. doesn't bother me in the least. Nor does the possibility that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. If someone came forward with substantiated proof, then I would consider them a big deal.

Mitchell's question, assuming it was asked in earnest, implies that Amanpour was spied upon and either Rison has information about the incident(s) or he doesn't. I suppose everyone is free to read as much into the implication as they want, but I've read/seen enough breaking news stories to know that reporters seldom have much more information than the general public.

Finally: Its entirely possible that the NSA tapped Amanpour's phones. At this point, I don't know...which means at this point, I don't really care.

On preview, what brain_drain said. I too would not be surprised if there's something to this, even if the something is less than what everyone is assuming.
posted by wabashbdw at 11:07 AM on January 5, 2006

Assuming the NSA or whomever has the ability to monitor all email and phone traffic of specific people (and I bet they do), I'd actually be very surprised if Bush was not tapping every journalist he considers a "nasty liberal," every political opponent he considers a threat, and every political group he thinks is liberal (Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, etc.).

What restraint has Bush shown since he's been in office? What value has he given to any branch of government not his own? The man fancies himself a dictator. You're goddamn right he's been illegally tapping the phone calls of Kerry and Amanpour. Why the hell wouldn't he? No one seems to give a shit if he does.

He's admitted to breaking the law, repeatedly, with the wiretaps he's already done. His only defense is "trust me, they were terrah'ists" and "as president, I get to decide what laws I want to follow." He is unrepentant, and plans to keep on breaking the law by wiretapping whomever the fuck he wants. And yet, he still holds the office of presidency. Why, exactly, would this man show any restraint?

Republican spinsters (not a typo) have gotten America to shrug, and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress aids and abets the crook. I'd be surprised if Bush isn't up to much worse.
posted by teece at 11:21 AM on January 5, 2006

wabash, well and good and fine. Now what does that have to do with beating a wife?

Or did you just toss that in for shock value?
posted by fenriq at 11:22 AM on January 5, 2006

It's the classic question-begging illustration, fenriq. It's a bit out of place here, but it wasn't really thrown in for shock value.

The proper train of thought is to ask do you beat your wife, not have you stopped. So, does Bush tap phones? Well, yes, we know he does. Did he tap Amanpour's? Who knows. But I'd be pretty damn surprised if his (admitted) illegal wiretapping was confined to just potential "enemies of the state." The temptation to throw in some political opponents would be so great, and it'd be so easy to hide, that you are almost guaranteed that Bush did.

Which is exactly why we have laws. And why Bush should be impeached. But, of course, he won't be.
posted by teece at 11:26 AM on January 5, 2006

Fenriq: the question about wife beating presupposes that you have a history of beating your wife, and either you continue or you've stopped. Likewise, Mitchell's question presupposes that Amanpour's phones have been tapped and either Risen has information about it or he doesn't.

Mitchell had already asked, "Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?," and Risen had answered "No." This makes her follow-up question about Amanpour sound completely assinine and which leads me to believe that she was chasing a rumour and wanted to take one more chance to see if Risen knew anything.

Entirely possible scenario #2: A D.C. rumour makes its way to Andrea Mitchell that Amanpour's phone may have been tapped. Mitchell throws the question to Risen to see if there's any bite to the story. NBC posts the transcript to the web and finds that bloggers have zeroed in on the question. Since the question appears entirely earnest when taken out-of-context (i.e. written as opposed to verbally expressed in a half-serious manner), Mitchell and NBC decide to take down that portion of the interview because it makes them look like gullible reporters chasing down outlandish rumours.
posted by wabashbdw at 11:57 AM on January 5, 2006

wabashbdw, in response to your scenario 2, here's a quote from nbc:

""Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry"
(from tvnewser)

could just be a c.y.a. move on their part, but i think it suggests there's something more to the story.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:02 PM on January 5, 2006

I can certainly believe either of those possibilities. NBC is definitely not above CYA press agent statements. And Mitchell is hardly an eager young reporter chasing longshot stories in the hopes of making it big.
posted by wabashbdw at 12:10 PM on January 5, 2006

wabashbdw: but I've read/seen enough breaking news stories to know that reporters seldom have much more information than the general public.

Huh? Let me repeat: huh???

(I mean, isn't it the case in almost all instances of investigative reporting that, until the article is published, the reporters know significantly more than the general public about the issue currently under investigation? Recent example: NYTimes reporters knowing about Bush's secret wiretaps for over a year before publication. Obviously regarding another potential secret wiretap story your comment is completely out of place.)
posted by nobody at 12:13 PM on January 5, 2006

In general, I'd probably agree that investigative reporters are better informed about a particular issue. But in a breaking story, I don't think that necessarily holds true. With 24-hour news cycles and an extremely competitive media marketplace, the media knows to get information out the door as soon as possible, which to me indicates that the public will have as much info as the reporters.

(I consider the NSA wiretap story to be 'breaking,' in the sense that reporters understand that it will be front page/lead story material for a limited amount of time. Hence, they will race each other to publish all their solid, double-sourced info that they've been collecting for a long time, and then quickly work to dig up any new information for the public to consume. It is this latter period that I think we are currently in.)

My point is simply that if Andrea Mitchell (or NBC) had anything remotely solid to go on regarding the NSA and Amanpour, they would've gone to press first (i.e. "Sources have told us that Amanpour's phone may have been tapped by the NSA...etc.) and asked Risen for more details later.
posted by wabashbdw at 12:37 PM on January 5, 2006

I haven't seen this on a major news site yet, but 20 Congressmembers have officially requested info from the whitehouse concerning the possible wiretapping of U.S. reporters.

The relevant bullet-point:
Any and all records identifying any members of the U.S. press, other U.S. media or Members of Congress for whom communications to or from them were intercepted.

posted by nobody at 1:45 PM on January 5, 2006

wabashbdw: your explanation is only one plausible scenario. You could be right, you could be wrong -- but note that this story is merely an extension of things that are very well confirmed (that Bush is spying on US citizens illegally).

Investigative stories are not "breaking." They go on for months or even years. The illegal Bush wiretaps have been known to reporters for at least a year. It's also entirely possible that Mitchell blew the lid on an investigative piece being worked on, but that that piece is not yet ready to be published. If a journalist had proof that Bush was spying on journalists with his illegal wiretaps, that be a pretty damn big scoop, no? The kind of thing you'd try not to spill to your competitors, no?

Or that she just pulled it out of her ass. Or that there is just a rumor floating around. Or that Amanpour is actually in contact with AQ terrorists. Who knows.

But the idea that the only, or even most likely, scenario is that this was just a blunder is a bit off.

Of course, what's not just idle conjecture is that Bush has broken the law with some of his surveillance, so he certainly deserves no benefit of the doubt. It should be assumed that Bush is wiretapping whomever the hell he pleases. Which why this whole thing came up.
posted by teece at 1:50 PM on January 5, 2006

But the idea that the only, or even most likely, scenario is that this was just a blunder is a bit off.

I disagree to the extent that since there is absolutely nothing concrete about this 'story,' then every scenario is equally plausible. This includes the possibility that Amanpour's phone was tapped, along with the possibility that Mitchell was just fishing for information about a rumor.

I think you missed my point of what I consider a 'breaking' story. My point is that the reporters do a thorough investigation and then drop the bombshell, after which they start chasing down new leads at a fevered pace. In the midst of a dominatingly huge story like the NSA wiretaps, a report is "ready to be published" pretty much as soon as any semblance of truthfulness can be attributed to it. This whole story surrounding Amanpour is obviously a new lead, and I just think its extremely early for the blogosphere to get ahead of themselves in attributing any weight to it. Like I said, if there was anything concrete knowledge about it then it would've been published by now.

And now for me to fan the fire: I'm sure everyone will remember that CNN admitted, and was heavily criticized, at the beginning of the Iraq war because it had developed and protected sources within Saddam Hussein's regime all throughout the 90's and early 00's. I wouldn't have any trouble believing that Amanpour's phone was tapped to eavesdrop on any potential conversations she may have with those former (current?) sources.

There's plenty of reasons why this story has merit, many of which you've mentioned. There's just no facts....yet. That's all I'm saying.
posted by wabashbdw at 2:23 PM on January 5, 2006

"Neither CNN nor Christiane Amanpour is aware of alleged eavesdropping by the government on Ms. Amanpour and we are unable to confirm this story. We are looking into it." [Mediabistro | January 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on January 5, 2006

Journalists, governors, whatever. We're at war people!
posted by ryoshu at 3:01 PM on January 5, 2006

Andrea Mitchell, tho, is no fool. She would not have mentioned it in an on-the-record interview unless she knew it was so. She's been around way too long to play that kind of game.
posted by amberglow at 3:06 PM on January 5, 2006

Journalists, governors, whatever. We're at war people!

And don't go writing books that are crictical of Bush!
James Moore, co-author of 'Bush's Brain'
"I'm sorry, sir," she said. "There seems to be a problem. You've been placed on the No Fly Watch List."

"Excuse me?"

"I'm afraid there isn't much more that I can tell you," she explained. "It's just the list that's maintained by TSA to check for people who might have terrorist connections."

"You're serious?"

"I'm afraid so, sir. Here's an 800 number in Washington. You need to call them before I can clear you for the flight."

Exasperated, I dialed the number from my cell, determined to clear up what I was sure was a clerical error. The woman who answered offered me no more information than the ticket agent.

"Mam, I'd like to know how I got on the No Fly Watch List."

"I'm not really authorized to tell you that, sir," she explained after taking down my social security and Texas driver's license numbers.

"What can you tell me?"

"All I can tell you is that there is something in your background that in some way is similar to someone they are looking for."

"Well, let me get this straight then," I said. "Our government is looking for a guy who may have a mundane Anglo name, who pays tens of thousands of dollars every year in taxes, has never been arrested or even late on a credit card payment, is more uninteresting than a Tupperware party, and cries after the first two notes of the national anthem? We need to find this guy. He sounds dangerous to me."

"I'm sorry, sir, I've already told you everything I can."

"Oh, wait," I said. "One last thing: this guy they are looking for? Did he write books critical of the Bush administration, too?"
[James Moore | January 4, 2006]
posted by ericb at 3:08 PM on January 5, 2006

I'm wondering who it was that John Bolton had tapped.
Something tells me it wasn't terrorists.
posted by nofundy at 3:26 PM on January 5, 2006

I'm wondering who it was that John Bolton had tapped.

Governor Bill Richardson and Colin Powell are the names I've heard bandied about.
posted by ryoshu at 3:33 PM on January 5, 2006

Is it too crazy for me to think that they may have been involved in corporate espionage too?
posted by Buck Eschaton at 3:37 PM on January 5, 2006

Buck, nope. Its too crazy to think that the illegal wiretaps were confined to one single media person (if the allegations are true).

So, you're now a terrorist if you write a book that's critical of the Bush administration? How soon until they start adding political bloggers to the No-Fly list?

That this was asked in an on-the-record interview means it is almost certainly not a fishing expedition, it almost certainly means that Mitchell knows something and was trying to get some corroboration.

Keep digging, big media, you can re-earn the public's trust by exposing these crooked fucks for the crooked fucks they are.
posted by fenriq at 9:12 PM on January 5, 2006

posted by mr.marx at 9:14 PM on January 5, 2006

Insane and offensive.

wabash, i think you've made the point that this remains unsubstantiated.

Mitchell and NBC decide to take down that portion of the interview because it makes them look like gullible reporters chasing down outlandish rumours.

If that were the case, then the statement they gave out would have been considerably different. These CNN transcripts usually contain everything, including crosstalk and off-camera utterances. It's exceptionally unusual for them to redact a portion of a transcript, in this manner. In fact, I've never heard of such a thing.
posted by dhartung at 10:58 PM on January 5, 2006

Update on Americablog
posted by NotWeButOne at 9:02 AM on January 7, 2006

« Older Using fine-art images to promote movies   |   Blonde joke Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments