Nixon
I didn’t get a chance to go see W over the weekend, and since everyone seems to hate it I think I probably won’t go. At the same time, I’m pretty baffled that the film got made at all. The seeming precedent, Oliver Stone’s Nixon, was a huge commercial failure: “As of December 19, 2006, the film has grossed a total of $13,681,765 domestically, well below its $44 million budget.” What about that result made people think it would be a good business move to have Stone direct a movie about George W. Bush?
Meanwhile, I liked Nixon. The theatrical release is messed up by the fact that the filmmakers seem to have been intimidated by Richard Helms’ threats of lawsuits into cutting the scenes in which he appears. This both deprives you of an excellent scene that you can see on the director’s cut DVD release, and also somewhat throws the plotline off course.
And, yes, the plot! This is where W, based on all the reviews, seems to have really gone off base. A lot of people found Nixon outrageous because Stone has inserted a wild conspiracy theory into a very meticulously researched and historically grounded film. The film has tremendous verisimilitude acquired through the use of real archival film and artful attention to detail. But that’s spliced together with a kind of crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK and probably Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and God knows who else. This is, among other things, what’s on the infamous missing eighteen minutes of tape. Is this a historically responsible thing to do? From a certain philistine perspective, no. But it’s what makes the film work — Nixon is a larger-than-life, stranger-than-fiction character and there are real gaps in the historical record. Gaps that stone fills with a very large fiction.
But for W, Stone has, by all accounts, come up with . . . nothing. Or, rather, Bush feels unloved by his dad. Blah.
54 Responses to “Nixon”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
“But that’s spliced together with a kind of crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK and probably Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and God knows who else. This is, among other things, what’s on the infamous missing eighteen minutes of tape.”
The idea the the missing tape concerns the events of ‘61 to ‘63 long predates the Stone movie, and is likely correct.
And even if the missing eighteen minutes was on another topic, if you think there are no connections between the Bay of Pigs and what took place in Dallas, I’ve got a bridge over the Potomac to sell you at a very good price.
—–
Also, W is definitely going to make money. Your concerns about the decisions made by the financiers of the movie are misplaced.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think the problem with W. is that George W. Bush is just not that interesting. Pathological evil – interesting. Low level incompetence – not interesting. Nixon’s life reads like Greek tragedy, Bush’s like a bad performance review.
And when is Hollywood going to get off its high horse and make a Teddy Roosevelt movie?
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
“W” is definitely worth seeing. Stone’s thesis is that Bush Jr. is so spoiled and unstable that there was no conspiracy required to have him land us in this mess. Also, if you liked “Nixon,” get hold of Altman’s “Secret Honor” (assuming you haven’t already seen it).
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
“But that’s spliced together with a kind of crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK”
More broadly, how can you write a book about the domestic political implications of American foreign policy and not have any clue of what happened in Dallas?
It’s probably the biggest event in your bailiwick to ever take place…
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
“Also, if you liked “Nixon,” get hold of Altman’s “Secret Honor”
I’m an enormous Altman fan, but Secret Honor is close to being unwatchable. The ideas are interesting, but as a movie…
Nixon succeeds because it’s good filmmaking.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Matthew overlooked the DEFINITIVE Nixon movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(movie)
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
“But for W, Stone has, by all accounts, come up with . . . nothing. Or, rather, Bush feels unloved by his dad. Blah.”
W is indeed very paint-by-the-numbers. But it’s still worth a trip to the theater.
Stone is quite good at what he does. This is a more minor work of his, but it’s still quite enjoyable. It has a similar slap-dash quality to it that U-Turn had, which was also quite enjoyable.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Re Petey’s comment “More broadly, how can you write a book about the domestic political implications of American foreign policy and not have any clue of what happened in Dallas?”
————
I agree.
Jack RUBENSTEIN?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby
First rule of assassination: Always shoot the shooter
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Dressing up wild-eyed conspiracy theories in historical detail is Stone’s hallmark–we saw the same thing in _JFK_, after all. And it’s hardly Stone’s invention; the same techniques are prominently on display in D.W. Griffith’s _Birth of a Nation_, which meticulously recreated such scenes as the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s assassination in order to legitimize fantasies about barefoot Negroes in Congress and mulatto rapists despoiling white women. Same playbook.
I won’t be seeing _W_–unless it’s on HBO at 9 AM when I’m checking out of a hotel room–because Stone lost my trust as a truth-teller long ago.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
I saw “W.”, and I’m not going to recommend seeing it. My objections are solely cinematic; the movie never quite comes together, and remains a series of vignettes lacking thematic coherence on any but the most superficial level. It’s funny in parts — I never would have thought of Oliver Stone as a comedy director, but he apparently does have some talent in that direction — but not worth shelling out for.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
No, please Matt, not another movie-review of a movie you haven’t seen….
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
The odd part is that Stone’s movies are the closest to the mainstream that the events of Dallas have gotten since the Congressional investigation of the mid-70’s.
The case for Dallas being a black op is really quite strong. I understand that the official story has never been debunked beyond a reasonable doubt, but the signs pointing to a black op really are overwhelming. If you came to the case cold and started reviewing, you’d quickly decide it was a military operation.
But Stone is the only guy in the past 30 years with access to the mainstream who’s been willing to raise the topic, and it makes everyone treat him like the skunk at a garden party. Weird.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
So do I. Of course, that ends the discussion for me.
I’m not going to see “W” because, frankly, I find it offensive to be told I don’t “know” Bush, and that he’s just a sad, dumb guy who made mistakes because he wanted to be better than his father. Is that why he kept vacationing when Katrina hit? Is that why he tried to destroy Social Security, which millions of people (like my mom) depend upon for their survival?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
No director is under a requirement to cling to history. If you want history, pick up an historian. I haven’t seen “Nixon”, but “JFK” was pure political melodrama, akin to Shakespeare’s “Richard III”. Stone’s movie more than captures the paranoia surrounding the assassination, it revels in it, like Scrooge McDuck swimming in his money bin. In 400 years, if anyone wants to know what Kennedy’s assassination felt like for us, Stone’s movie will be the best source. The Bay of Pigs. The Mafia. Anti-communist CIA agents with grudges. Closeted homosexuals with political connections. It’s all in there.
Don’t believe Stone’s polemics. Just watch the movie.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
If you disregard Platoon, Oliver Stone’s body of work might be worse than Ed Wood’s.
And I’m not just saying that because Petey likes him…though that should tell you most of what you need to know. OODA loop!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
“I understand that the official story has never been debunked beyond a reasonable doubt. – So do I. Of course, that ends the discussion for me.”
Of course, the current administration’s account of their reasons for invading Iraq will never be debunked beyond a reasonable doubt, even if all the obvious signs point in other directions.
If you are well organized, and if you dot your i’s and cross your t’s as if your life depended upon it, you can give almost any story enduring plausibility. But plausibility exists in a different realm from determining what actually happened…
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
What duBois says above. Thanks for that moment of clarity and sanity.
JFK is my fav. Stone movie by far. Great great cast and brilliantly edited.
I for one find W feeling unloved by uber-Bush to be a pretty compelling and melancholy narrative. I’m hoping we get some Jeb portrayal in the movie too. That’s a complicated triangle right there.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
“OODA loop!”
Economic meltdowns trump tactical maneuvering.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Petey, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the reality of the JFK assassination. I _did_ come to the case cold, or as cold as any American can, having paid the matter litle attention until a friend moved to Dallas. I’ve since been to the grassy knoll, the storm drain, what have you, and my sincere conclusion is that Oswald fired three shots, two of which struck Kennedy. Whether anyone was “behind” Oswald is worth investigating, but they’d have to be a bunch of screw-ups to go with a screw-up like Oswald.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
As long as we’re on the topic of Stone’s political movies, I’ll put in a good word for Commandante, his feature length interview/doc with Fidel. Worth a Netflix slot.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
“W” is definitely worth seeing. It’s not especially sophisticated or incisive (and the father-son stuff is especially banal), but that’s precisely the point. To attempt to capture Bush with nuance and complexity when his cheerful, willful ignorance might be the personality trait that most defined him as a president is to give him too much cinematic credit. This seems to be a nice example of what happens when form matches content, and I mean this without any irony. Why should the movie focus in depth on the horrors of Iraq and Guantanamo and domestic spying when Bush himself seems pretty well insulated from it all?
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
“my sincere conclusion is that Oswald fired three shots, two of which struck Kennedy. Whether anyone was “behind” Oswald is worth investigating, but they’d have to be a bunch of screw-ups to go with a screw-up like Oswald.”
Shots were fired from the Depository. I have no idea if Oswald was the shooter located there or not. But shots were also fired from a place that was not the Depository.
And Oswald was a total success for the planners, not a failure. It’d be hard to imagine casting anyone better for the part.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Re Petey’s comment “If you are well organized, and if you dot your i’s and cross your t’s as if your life depended upon it, you can give almost any story enduring plausibility ”
—————
Petey’s partially right but it’s a hell of a lot harder to maintain perfect cover on operational actions than in a narrative. Even with lots of recon and detailed planning, shit happens. It’s hard to control reality 100 percent.
Which is why a lot of crooks get caught –although not all of them.
I think the biggest argument against Oswald being part of a conspiracy is the fact that he lived so long.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
I saw “W.”, and I’m not going to recommend seeing it. My objections are solely cinematic; the movie never quite comes together, and remains a series of vignettes lacking thematic coherence on any but the most superficial level. It’s funny in parts — I never would have thought of Oliver Stone as a comedy director, but he apparently does have some talent in that direction — but not worth shelling out for.
I kind of agree with this, but I had a somewhat more favorable response to the movie.
In addition, I found the lack of a grand narrative or Nixon-like conspiratorial angle to be a feature, rather than a bug. My major complaint with Stone is that in addition to not being a very good filmmaker, he’s a grandiose filmmaker. So that can make him truly awful – see Any Given Sunday, for instance. But W. is a good deal more restrained, and better.
Josh Brolin is really good, and also makes the film worth watching. But I don’t recommend it highly.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hi Matt,
I would also suggest that you see W.. I enjoyed the fact that the film was vignette based, and the acting — especially Richard Dreyfuss’s snarling Dick Cheney — was terrific. (I’m a huge fan of character actor Dennis Boutsikaris, recognizable to most from his regular appearances on Law & Order, so it was great to see him portray Wolfowitz.)
I’m looking forward to Milk, too.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 am
Steel doesn’t melt!
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
I haven’t seen “W” yet, but I’m a little surprised no one’s mentioned “Primary Colors,” which was its clear predecessor in the “character-study before the term is out” genre. It was also a financial flop, although I thought it was an intriguing film with fantastic performances by Travolta and Thompson. I don’t know if this genre is doomed to fail, or if movie goers were just suffering from then-Clinton/now-Bush fatigue.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Tony Hopkins, Joan Allen, and the late, great J.T. Walsh made “Nixon” more than worthwhile. As the key principal – Josh Brolin just doesn’t measure up. And, a garden-variety Jewish boomer (Richard Dreyfuss)as Cheney? He’s not that good of an actor. William Hurt would’ve been much better.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
“But that’s spliced together with a kind of crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK and probably Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and God knows who else. This is, among other things, what’s on the infamous missing eighteen minutes of tape. Is this a historically responsible thing to do? From a certain philistine perspective, no. But it’s what makes the film work — Nixon is a larger-than-life, stranger-than-fiction character and there are real gaps in the historical record.”
Sorry, but this is at the same level as the “mysterious deaths” so beloved of Ann Coulter et al. What about Vince Foster’s death? That’s a “gap,” isn’t it? So why not fill it with speculation about an affair with Hillary, a hitman hired by Roger Clinton, et cetera?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
On W: I quite enjoyed it. It kind of plays like a greatest hits version of the first 3 and a half years of the Bush administration, which is familiar to all of us, but still alarming to see in succession like that. The family backstory is compelling as well. But most of all, it’s worth seeing for the actors. Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Thandie Newton, Dick Cheney…er…Richard Dreyfus, the guy that plays Colin Powell…there are some great performances in the film.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
I’m loking forward to W, but I’ll probably wait for the DVD – I’m all politicked out lately.
Salvador is one of my all-time favorite films – it’s so good that even Jim Belushi is good in it.
Born on the 4th of July, the Doors, Natural Born Killers, Wall Street, Platoon – all very entertaining and re-watchable.
Any Given Sunday is the one true stinker Stone has made.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
“My major complaint with Stone is that in addition to not being a very good filmmaker, he’s a grandiose filmmaker. So that can make him truly awful – see Any Given Sunday, for instance.”
Any Given Sunday is a truly atrocious film that I wouldn’t recommend to anyone. Yet, I enjoyed the two hours in the theater when I watched it.
And that’s why Stone is a worthwhile filmmaker. Even his bombs are semi-mesmerizing.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Nixon was indeed a very underrated and underappreciated film. Particularly outstanding were the flashbacks to his Whittier youth and the several scenes, showing a quite “complicated” marriage with Pat (Joan Allen).
Poor box office probably had more to do with the public’s lukewarm interest in the drab and negative subject matter that is Richard Nixon. Perhaps if Stone had titled his RN movie JFK Part Two: After Dallas, he probably would have at least earned back the cost of the movie. (similar financial results obtain in the book publishing industry, I’m told, where anything with Kennedy in the title tends to greatly outperform most other works about presidents, though the market has been absolutely flooded in recent times with Kennedy material, so a saturation point has likely been reached)
As for his JFK, it’s the only movie I’m aware of which directly led to major congressional legislation (opening up many thousands of classified files on the case). While it had its relatively trivial flaws of fact, as moviemaking it was scintillating, and in its overall factual depiction of what happened that day it is mostly on target. Certainly Stone deserves great credit (rarely or only begrudgingly granted by the MSM) for making more information on the subject available to the public.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Matt-
I’m glad you mentioned Nixon, because I have found myself turning it over in my mind again and again throughout this long, long, election.
That being said, I think you misread what Stone was trying to say when you state:
“But that’s spliced together with a kind of crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK and probably Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and God knows who else. This is, among other things, what’s on the infamous missing eighteen minutes of tape.”
Do you recall the scene in which Nixon meets with anti-war student activists at the Lincoln Memorial, under cover of darkness? In response to their badgering, “You’re the President, why can’t you just end the war?” Nixon basically tells them that in the modern United States, the President doesn’t really have that much power. His job is mainly to contain “The Beast”- the combined rapacious interests of corporate America, the finance sector, the defense industry- the entire military-industrial and yes, Congressional- complex.
Americans want (need?) to see their President as a powerful leader sitting atop a legitimate, functioning government, rather than a titular figurehead merely trying to constrain forces far beyond his control.
Now one can see, in Stone’s version of history, why it was imperative that the 18 minutes of tape never see the light of day. It’s not because Nixon was discussing conspiracies or the like. It was because he was discussing The Beast. In Stone’s telling, the 18 minutes are “missing” because for the American public to know the truth about the Presidency, and about the business interests that really run America, would be to destroy the Presidency and America itself.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I still blame Oliver Stone for being the only person on earth who could have made the life of Alexander the Great look boring and less interesting that what actually happened.
As for “W”? Really, I lived through 8 years of this. I’m going to spend 2 hours watching a movie to see that Bush has no sense of responsibility, harbors delusions of adequacy, and has hangups about his dad?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
oswald was the perfect patsy, just as he claimed.
he lived as long as he did, even though there were obvious eforts to eliminate him much sooner.
my experience is that most people who actually study and research the issue end up being extremely skeptical about the “official story”.
for several years i taught a college course the focused on the assassination. over the course of 13 weeks, my students had to research the assassination, develop a thesis about one aspect – eg, whether oswald had intelligence agency connections or whether the magic bullet theory was plausible or whether the body may have been altered at some point, prior to the autopsy – and then write a ten page paper based on their thesis.
this was in the early ’90’s. at the beginning of the semester, the students would be almost totally ignorant about the specifics of the case. and they would typically support the “official story”, by default.
however, by the end of the semester, after doing very exhaustive research, 95 percent of the students would laugh and scoff at any suggestion that oswald, alone, had killed kennedy. there might be one hold out in each class, but almost to a person, after actually studying the issue, and delving deeply into the facts, the case for a conspiracy was so strong that they would openly ridicule any statement that supported a lone nut theory.
petey is right. the facts are obvious. if someone is willing to look at them.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I understand that the official story has never been debunked beyond a reasonable doubt
So do I. Of course, that ends the discussion for me.
I’m sorry, this response is simply inadequate. Just because a theory is not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean there aren’t more likely theories at hand. The relevant question is whether Petey’s claim is correct. I imagine that modern ballistic experts could determine very easily whether it is conceivable that Oswald could have fired all 3 shots. I don’t know if ballistic analysis was not as good at the time or if the investigation was tampered with. As a non-expert on the subject, I’m not making a judgment on the issue. I think the most powerful counter argument is that it is damn hard to conceal that kind of conspiracy. And that comes down to saying that even if the official explanation is a little fishy, it is still far more plausible than the black ops investigation. But there is a lot of room for debate at that point. The reason I don’t choose to pursue the matter further is that I don’t have the evidence to really figure it out and the answer would probably not change how I behave, either. Perhaps, if it were a conspiracy, I would think more fondly of living in a place like China, if that’s how things really work in the US.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
And that’s why Stone is a worthwhile filmmaker. Even his bombs are semi-mesmerizing.
So wrong, it’s hard to read without gakking all over. The Doors and Born on the Fourth of July were totally unwatchable. JFK made Costner the most dynamic force on the screen, and he wasn’t any better than he usually is, so, ouch. The pacing of most of his films make CSPAN look frenetic and his subtlety makes Rambo look like a Merchant/Ivory production, but at least he keeps his movies to a svelte 7-8 hours long.
But other than that, he’s great!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
as someone who was involved in the criminal justice system for decades, one fact always stood out: most crimes are “solved” because someone involved ends up talking.
there is an old saying among defense attorneys: even a fish would avoid getting caught if he would just keep his mouth shut.
the people involved in the kennedy assassination were pros.
pros understand that most crimes are not solved by sherlock holmes-type investigation. they know that most crimes are solved when someone squeals, for one reason or another. anger, spite, jealousy, financial considerations, any number of motivations.
they made sure that anyone who could have compromised them got killed. there is a long, long list of people that we do know about – starting with oswald – who could have provided important information, who were killed shortly after the assassination. i’m certain there is also a long list of people we do not now know know about who also ended up with a bullet in their head, because of their connection to and knowledge of certain relevant facts.
all you have to do is take a look at the available historical facts in the matter – and ignore official pronouncements like the warren commission report which were designed to muddy the waters – and the truth become very clear.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“crazy story in which Nixon is plagued by guilt over his connections to a shadowy group that’s responsible for killing JFK and probably Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and God knows who else.”
Why is this so crazy? As VP, Nixon undoubtedly had a connection to one of the shadowiest of CIA assassination groups – Operation 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40). That is, unless “presiding over it” doesn’t count as a connection.
And the names of some of the members of that group pop up repeatedly in Dallas conspiracy writing. Whether those specific connections are valid is open to debate, but Petey and frankie d are correct that, as a general matter, the evidence of conspiracy in Dallas is quite strong.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“JFK made Costner the most dynamic force on the screen, and he wasn’t any better than he usually is, so, ouch.” (D. Monteith)
Bullshit. Gary Oldman’s “Lee Harvey Oswald” alone made the movie a gem. The ensemble acting was just out of this world. Asner, Lemmon, Tommy Lee Jones, John Candy, Joe Pesce, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Michael Rooker, all the bit parts – everyone in it was brilliant! I know a million fucking actors and there isn’t a movie they revere more than “JFK”.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
“as someone who was involved in the criminal justice system for decades, one fact always stood out: most crimes are “solved” because someone involved ends up talking. there is an old saying among defense attorneys: even a fish would avoid getting caught if he would just keep his mouth shut. the people involved in the kennedy assassination were pros.”
It’s interesting.
I think Dallas was done by the same folks who toppled Arbenz and Mossadeq.
We know about those operations because folks bragged. There was no penalty for bragging, so folks bragged. It’s not as if the Iranians could bring Kermit Roosevelt to justice years later.
The key difference in doing a domestic op is that everyone has to keep their mouths shut forever. No bragging allowed at all – you and others can always be brought to justice if bragging occurs. The first rule of domestic ops is you don’t talk about domestic ops.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Something I learned researching my previous comment:
According to Wikipedia, the word “blowback” occurs linguistically for the first time in the CIA operation plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq.
At least they were cognizant of the downside, I’ll give ‘em that…
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
…if you think there are no connections between the Bay of Pigs and what took place in Dallas, I’ve got a bridge over the Potomac to sell you at a very good price.
There’s obviously a “connection” — they both involve John F. Kennedy. Beyond that, nothing. Understandably it offends human psychology to think that Camelot was ended by a delusional, paranoid 20-something loner with a $40 gun. Conspiracy theories are so much more satisfying.
i’m certain there is also a long list of people we do not now know know about who also ended up with a bullet in their head, because of their connection to and knowledge of certain relevant facts.
You’re “certain” are you? Okay, please share with the rest of us the evidence for your certainy.
The first rule of domestic ops is you don’t talk about domestic ops.
And you know this how?
I have no idea if Oswald was the shooter located there or not. But shots were also fired from a place that was not the Depository.
And you know this how?
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Having just finished reading “Legacy of Ashes” I can’t bring myself to believe the CIA could ever do anything right, let alone successfully assassinate the president.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Stone can’t direct. Period. Nixon was this horrible melodramatic mess, and W.’s a lot worse. He did write Scarface though, so there’s that to be said for him.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Almost 17 years after Nick and Alice Zizzo adopted a brown-eyed, chubby-cheeked baby girl through San Diego County’s child welfare system, she came home one day bubbling that her high school choir was going to Europe. EARNIE GRAFTON /
December 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“The Bonnie Hunt Show” – Kathy Griffin; David Archuleta performs. 9 a.m. on WANE, Channel 15. “The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet” – Investigate the 5 bites diet. 9 a.m. on WFFT, Channel 55. “Live with Regis and Kelly
March 11th, 2009 at 4:48 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:30 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:21 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:41 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Good evening. Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.
I am from Syria and learning to write in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Search cheaphotels worldwide for discount rates and cheap accommodation cheapairfares.”
Thank you very much
. Lovie.