Senator Daschle on Abuse of Power

[Doomstone]

This is a thing of beauty:

Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power (http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/releases/2004330506.html)



Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong-and it's not the first time it's happened.



He touches on almost everything: Character assassination of and retaliation against every critic; dirty tricks against McCain and Cleland; requests for senate investigations against critics, but no senate investigations for the outing of Plame; threatening an employee in order to withhold the truth from the public; politicizing the declassification of information, while at the same time insisting on secrecy of the Cheney energy task force and terrorism task force and more.


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

[Tall_James]

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship


Yeah....right.


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj2_sig.gif>


Frank Burns eats worms

[Tall_James]

http://i.xanga.com/middleageguy/daschle-priceless-lefty.jpg


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj2_sig.gif>


Frank Burns eats worms

[jeffdwright2001]

http://i.xanga.com/middleageguy/daschle-priceless-lefty.jpg

Even HE has trouble finding his heart

[Doomstone]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-daschle.htm

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

[A.J.]

Daschle's wife Linda is a powerful and influential airline lobbyist. I suppose that excludes him from scrutiny on "conflict of interest" issues.

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

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Mike Teacher]

It didn't help that Clarke got the big press with 60 minutes, a CBS company owned by Viacom, which also owns the books publisher; Simon & Schuster.

Not calling into doubt Clarke as much as I'm pissed off at 60 minutes; there's a show that ha, for me, completely lost the cred it once enjoyed.

Intentional or accident; the above clearly does Not come across well. And the timing? Yow...

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

[Doomstone]

Daschle's wife Linda is a powerful and influential airline lobbyist. I suppose that excludes him from scrutiny on "conflict of interest" issues.

How does his wife's position as an airline lobbyist conflict with anything he said? He didn't mention anything remotely related to the airline industry.



It didn't help that Clarke got the big press with 60 minutes, a CBS company owned by Viacom, which also owns the books publisher; Simon & Schuster.

Not calling into doubt Clarke as much as I'm pissed off at 60 minutes; there's a show that ha, for me, completely lost the cred it once enjoyed.

Intentional or accident; the above clearly does Not come across well. And the timing? Yow...



To be fair, they did point that out on their next show, and Clarke has gone on other shows on competing networks.

Of course, if you want to go down that route, take a look at the books published by HarperCollins (http://www.harpercollins.com/), which is owned by...NewsCorp!

NewsCorp also owns Fox News. They publish books by, oh, Peggy Noonan, for example. Noonan's association with the company is never mentioned when she's on Fox News. That isn't an exception, that's a commonality. They've also published Michael Deaver, Frank Bruni, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity...hell, HarperCollins published Dubya's "Charge To Keep" book.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with the abuse of power by those in the executive branch of our government.

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

edited to fix a link

This message was edited by Doomstone on 3-30-04 @ 6:21 PM

[smeagol]

abuse of power? what a joke, a load of crap. but not surprising and nothing new. When you can't make yourself look good, try to make the other guy look bad.

Dems lead in '04 smear campaign (http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2701728,00.html)

Well, Bush-haters? Let's hear it, where's the smear from the right? Got any similar quotes from the Bush Administration? Doubtful

This message was edited by smeagol on 3-31-04 @ 1:20 PM

[A.J.]

How does his wife's position as an airline lobbyist conflict with anything he said? He didn't mention anything remotely related to the airline industry.

"I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public."

He's alluding to Cheney's Halliburton ties. Therefore, the Energy Task Fource MUST be corrupt somehow.

Everytime oil or energy is mentioned with Cheney there are hints of corruption. Yet nobody questions Daschle whenever he casts a vote connected with the airlines -- even though his wife has ties to the airline industry.

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

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Doomstone]

How does his wife's position as an airline lobbyist conflict with anything he said? He didn't mention anything remotely related to the airline industry.

"I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public."

He's alluding to Cheney's Halliburton ties. Therefore, the Energy Task Fource MUST be corrupt somehow.

Everytime oil or energy is mentioned with Cheney there are hints of corruption. Yet nobody questions Daschle whenever he casts a vote connected with the airlines -- even though his wife has ties to the airline industry.


A completely, totally, utterly, WEAK argument. Somehow, the fact that Daschle's wife works as an airline lobbyist negates the fact that the Bush administration is ridiculously corrupt and abuses its power? Now I've seen everything!

Summary:

Tom Daschle: I accuse the Bush administration of abusing its power, here are the reasons why.

RF.net dittomonkey #1: Hey look! Here's a doctored photo of Tom Daschle!

RF.net dittomonkey #2: Oh yeah! Well Daschle's wife works as an airline lobbyist, so if he were to ever be involved in an issue relating to the airline industry then that obviously means something about Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Wookies are from Endor! That does not make sense!

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

[Tall_James]

RF.net dittomonkey #1: Hey look! Here's a doctored photo of Tom Daschle!

Are you so far gone beyond the edges of extremism that you can't recognize a joke? And why is it that extreme Liberals such as yourself are usually the ones engaging most in name-calling (i.e. "dittomonkey) but invariably become the biggest crybabies when someone attacks one of their sacred cows? No one is innocent on either side.

Tall James Fan Club
Doomstone


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj2_sig.gif>


The Priest wore black on the seventh day and sat stone-faced while the building burned

[Se7en]

http://i.xanga.com/middleageguy/daschle-priceless-lefty.jpg

Even HE has trouble finding his heart



Gold.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[smeagol]

...the fact that the Bush administration is ridiculously corrupt and abuses its power...

Is there agreement with this? If yes, have any FACTS? Who, what, where, when, why? I saw NO FACTS in Daschle's "victim statement" on behalf of Clarke. It was pure political grandstanding in my opinion.

I saw and heard Clarke lay some serious charges down last week. And I saw and heard the left-of-center part of "those in power" (who happen to be seeking more power), and yes print and TV media too, latch onto Clarke's perspective like a hungry baby to a nipple.

Good for the Administration for responding to this load of "politicized" crap surrounding the "truth" according to Clarke!! Moreover, how about one example where the Admin response has been personally directed at him, rather than providing differing (albeit spirited) accounts of what this guy has said? What, they said he's "bitter"? Aww poor Clarke, the beacon of truth is now a victim.

There are real problems with what this guy has put forth, including him saying Rice "knew nothing" about Al-Qaeda in 2001 when TAPE from an interview in 2000 has her discussing Al-Qaeda in GREAT DETAIL. Or Clarke describing a meeting where Rumsfeld played a key role, yet records show Rumsfeld did NOT attend the meeting. What about these and MANY other FACTS in conflict with the "truth" according to Clarke?

Abuse of power - BULLSHIT

Enough is enough! Gore says Bush "betrayed" you, Kennedy says he "mislead, misguided, distorted" you, Kerry says he "lied". WTF is that? And now Daschle hitches his wagon to Richard "swingin dick" Clarke?

Again, I say to Bush-haters. Let's hear it, where's the smear from the right?

Dems lead in '04 smear campaign (http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_2701728,00.html)

Clarke was so worried and concerned about Administration shortfalls yet he waits until NOW to "tell the truth"? If, so he says, the Admin was SO lax...couldn't thousands or millions have been killed in the almost THREE years since he had started working in the Admin? So worried yet he ASKED for a transfer OUT of counter-terrorism instead of fighting on for what he believed?

And only NOW he is compelled to tell the "truth"...when televised "testimony" coincides EXACTLY with a release of his BOOK?

Bush was SO lax for eight months - what about eight YEARS of Clinton? Where was Clarke and what was done THEN?:

Al-Qaeda Attacks prior to 9/11
1993 Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1993 Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.
1994 Investigation of WTC bombing: only a small part of a massive attack plan that included hijacking a plane and crashing it into CIA headquarters.
1995-1996 Bombing of U.S. barracks, Saudi Arabia; 22 soldiers killed.
1998 Bombing of U.S. embassies, East Africa; 224 killed; including 12 Americans.
2000 Bombing of USS Cole, Yemen, 17 U.S. sailors killed

When during these years was the "urgency" to face this problem supposed to start, Clarke? Maybe Clarke looks at it as mostly a "law enforcement problem", as Madeline A. did, or as Kerry does (he says he does, and that is NOT GOOD)?

So instead of looking at fixing the whole system, Clarke fixates on Bush. In a major way he fixates. And Bush responds. Poor poor Clarke. Again, where's the big personal attack on Clarke? what was said, who said it, when, where? because I must've missed it.

And the kicker of all of this? If you follow the basic premise of Clarke, essentially laying the "blame" for 9/11 on Bush. then Clarke and the suckling left is basically asking Bush why he didn't strike out at Al-Qaeda/Taliban/Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. That would be pre-emptive, would it not? Hmmm, how does the left feel about pre-emption?

Madeline A. told the committee that they didn't have "actionable intelligence" to act against Al-Qaeda, that the "people didn't have the will", and that the "International Community wasn't behind us". What a joke. Clarke had the same job then, did he not?

Good for

[keithy_19]

Smeagol, great post.



http://www.silentpix.com/modules/Coppermine/albums/userpics/smokepotkeith.jpg
Thanks to katylina...

[HBox]

1995-1996 Bombing of U.S. barracks, Saudi Arabia; 22 soldiers killed.


WRONG! First person to name correct terror organization behind these attacks gets a an imaginary cookie. Bonus points for country supporting said group.



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

[TheMojoPin]

Bush was SO lax for eight months - what about eight YEARS of Clinton? Where was Clarke and what was done THEN?

Again, is anyone actually listening to Clarke? He's extremely critical of Clinton and co.'s stance on terrorism, especially in his book. He's just MORE critical of the current Bush administration. He's also very critical of Reagan...but VERY supportive and praising of the first Bush. He spares little in propping up the first Bush and his administration as THE best in handling international terrorism. This is what shoots a giant hole in this asinine notion of "Clarke's a liar, he's just a puppet of the left." He's extremely critical of Clinton, and he has almost nothing but praise for Dubya's father. Oh no! He's focusing on THIS Bush in his testimony...the guy currently in office! Who is the focus of these very hearings! Shocking! Whoulda thunk? Wowee-zowee!!!

Some people should really actually read what he's saying before they start making things up, or veering off onto some bizarre tangent about "smear campaigns." It's an absurd dose of diversionary spin.

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

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-31-04 @ 11:30 PM

[HBox]

Thank you Mojo. And just to prove that Clarke didn't have just great things to say about Clinton, I'll print my favorite portion of the book:

Shortly after 6:00 p.m. a small group of seniro administration officials began assembling in Lake's office. I went to the Oval Office to help the President woth his last few calls notifying congressional leaders. The cruise missiles had just been launched.
"So when will we get the pictures from the missiles?" the President asked me.
"Well, we don't get pictures from the missiles, sir, but we will have bomb damage images from satellites available to show you first thing in the morning," I explained.
"Tomorrow morning? I'm going on TV in an hour to say we blew up this building-I want to know first that we did. Why don't the missiles have cameras in them?" the President insisted.
"Well, if the missiles communicated, someone might see them coming or interfere with them. But we know how many we fired and when, so we can calculate how many will hit and when-"
"We can't communicate with the missiles? What if I wanted to turn them back?" the President asked.

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

[Doomstone]

Just a couple of quick comments on smeagol's little whirlwind of logical fallacies, distortions, and lies...

how about one example where the Admin response has been personally directed at him, rather than providing differing (albeit spirited) accounts of what this guy has said?

How about Cheney going on Rush Limbaugh's show and proclaiming to the dittomonkeys that Clarke was "out of the loop?"

Condiliar Rice characterizing Clarke's testimony as a "retrospective rewriting of the history of the first several months of the administration?"

Then there's Jim Wilkinson, deputy national security advisor for communications and one of the thugs who protested the Florida recounts, saying, "If you look in this book, you find interesting things such as reported in the Washington Post this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and how bin Laden has some sort of mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of X-Files stuff. And what I'd say is, this is a man who was in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who was supposed to be focused on that. And he was focused on meetings".

How's this quote from Wolf Blitzer: "What <b>administration officials have been saying</b> since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a <b>disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion</b>. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. <b>He wants to make a few bucks</b>, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that <b>there are some weird aspects in his life</b> as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president."

There are real problems with what this guy has put forth, including him saying Rice "knew nothing" about Al-Qaeda in 2001 when TAPE from an interview in 2000 has her discussing Al-Qaeda in GREAT DETAIL.
This, of course, is a flat out lie. Clarke never said Rice "knew nothing" about Al-Qaeda, he said "her facial expression gave the impression she'd never heard of al Qaeda before."

And that interview you speak of? Here's the quote:

<i>Osama bin Laden do two things [sic]. The first is you really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA and foreign intelligence and the FBI and domestic intelligence.
There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory.</i>

The Rice quote mentions bin Laden, but nothing about Al Qaeda. (I'm willing to concede that it's likely she had heard about bin Laden's organization, but we are playing the game of impeaching a man's credibility based on a strictly literal interpretation of words, so fair is fair.)

I don't have the time right now to respond to the rest but I do want to point how typical it is that rather than refute Daschle's accusations, you instead attack, attack, attack, those critical of Dear Leader, while at the same time accusing the Democrats of engaging in smear campaigns. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

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

[smeagol]

"little whirlwind of logical fallacies, distortions, and lies..." Hey, that sounds kinda like a personal attack. Why am I not surprised.

"out of the loop.", "retrospective rewriting.", "X-files stuff." constitute personal attacks or smears on Clarke?

And a quote from "Tragedy TV's" Wolf Blitzer stating how HE sees it?? Extremely weak

How about some real ones:

Kennedy on Iraq: Bush Admin "mislead", "misguided", "deceived".

Howard Dean on Ashcroft: Ashcroft "is no patriot. He's a direct descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

Kerry: Bush "lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends"

Gore: Bush "betrayed" the country in Iraq.

Sen. Bob Graham on Bush's Iraq policy "anti-patriotic at the core."

Wesley Clark: Bush's policies were "not patriotic."

The Clarke thing is what it is. One man's perspective in a sea of political posturing. And still I see NO facts to back up Daschle's "abusing the powers" accusation. And NO facts from you to back up "...the fact that the Bush administration is ridiculously corrupt and abuses its power..."

But what do I know? I'm just a whirlwind of logical fallacies, distortions, and lies.

[HBox]

Hey, that sounds kinda like a personal attack. Why am I not surprised.

That didn't sound anything like a personal attack. He was talking about your post, not you.

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

[TheMojoPin]

AGAIN, everything is spun right back off onto this "smear" tangent...AND it's with the perspective that ONLY the Left is doing it.

Yet any rebuttals on what Clarke said, or even the initial subject of this thread?

No.

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

[smeagol]

This whole thing is about "smear", more or less. Daschle accuses the Bush Admin of "systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government" based on the "retaliation" ("smearing", no?) for what Clarke said. I think Daschle makes serious charges not supported by facts.

I think it (Daschle statement) is an outrageous, over-the-top choice of words. I think it is similar to the outrageous words I mentioned coming from other Dems, lately. That kind of extreme smear I have only heard from the left, in this campaign. I never intended to say that the right is perfect by any means. I still ask if anyone has any quotes like that coming from the right.

Also, I say honestly, and I welcome evidence to counter, that I have not heard the kind of statements I referred to reported as "attacks". Yet the ads describing how Kerry has voted are quickly labeled as "attacks". Are they political ads coming from the Bush admin? Yes of course they are. But "betrayed", "liar", "unpatriotic"?? Where were these reported as "attacks"??

Now, is Clarke entitled to speak his views? Of course he is. But to me he played some hard politics with recent events. The "message" of his testimony clearly differs with the message of his book (apparently harsh on Clinton too), and both apparently differ with things said and done when he served in government. And the timing of the book release and the 60 Minutes drama on the eve of the testimony was in my opinion nothing less than self-serving in the extreme.

With all the factors considered, Clarke showed himself as a master of politics, in my mind. As with any politician, the motives and agenda are hard to interpret. But it seems to me that many people don't see him as such and are taking him more or less at face value. I'm not saying that his views should not be considered, just that they should be considered in context.

I do think that recent events introducing hard politics into the process have hurt this commission. I believe that their report will confirm that the "system" was not able to stop the truly diabolical events of 9/11. I also believe that their report will confirm that no American person, administration, agency can and should be "blamed". The blame lies squarely on the cowardly murderers, and bin Ladin who wept with joy on 9/11.

[A.J.]

A completely, totally, utterly, WEAK argument. Somehow, the fact that Daschle's wife works as an airline lobbyist negates the fact that the Bush administration is ridiculously corrupt and abuses its power? Now I've seen everything!


Right. That was EXACTLY what I said.

Oh, I don't listen to Rush so you can just refer to me as a Nazi instead of a "dittomonkey".

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

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

Also, I say honestly, and I welcome evidence to counter, that I have not heard the kind of statements I referred to reported as "attacks". Yet the ads describing how Kerry has voted are quickly labeled as "attacks". Are they political ads coming from the Bush admin? Yes of course they are. But "betrayed", "liar", "unpatriotic"?? Where were these reported as "attacks"??

Personally, I saw Kerry's ads criticized on both "Headline News" and "The Daily Show"...damn liberal biases!!!

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

[Se7en]

Wait.....the Daily Show lampooned a liberal Democrat????

......Damn, they must have been desperate for material to stoop to that.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[HBox]

The Daily Show makes fun of Democrats all the time. Not as often or are savagely as they do with Republicans, but it is very far from an uncommon occurance.

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

[keithy_19]

I used to want to go into politics when I got older. But when it comes down to it, it's just a bunch of guys who bitch about eachother. 9/11 is possibly the most serious thing to happen to America, if not the world, and people are still bitching about who let this happen. The topic should be what can we do to make things better. Fuck the finger pointing and start doing something.

http://www.silentpix.com/modules/Coppermine/albums/userpics/smokepotkeith.jpg
Thanks to katylina...

[TheMojoPin]

Wait.....the Daily Show lampooned a liberal Democrat????

......Damn, they must have been desperate for material to stoop to that.

How would you know? You don't watch it.

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

[smeagol]

1995-1996 Bombing of U.S. barracks, Saudi Arabia; 22 soldiers killed.


WRONG! First person to name correct terror organization behind these attacks gets a an imaginary cookie. Bonus points for country supporting said group.


I wrongly said Al-Qaeda. According to US AG, not Al-Qaeda but Saudi Hizballah, probably help from Lebanese Hizballah , and almost certainly Iran "inspired, supported, and supervised"

Other Al-Qaeda ones pre-9/11 I hadn't listed:

According to State Dept:
claimed responsibility for 3 bombs, US troops targeted. Dec 1992, Yemen.

likely behind plans that didn't happen: Kill President Clinton in Philippines , 1995; kill Pope John Paul II, Philippines, 1994; bomb a dozen planes midair over Pacific, 1995; bomb at LA Airport in 1999; Jordan stopped plan to kill US Israelis tourists in Jordan,millennium celebrations, 1999.

This message was edited by smeagol on 4-6-04 @ 5:57 AM

[Se7en]

Wait.....the Daily Show lampooned a liberal Democrat????

......Damn, they must have been desperate for material to stoop to that.

How would you know? You don't watch it.


What can I say? Family Guy reruns are 100 times funnier.

And if I get tired of FG, I'll watch "Food Unwraped" on the Food Network.

I've got tons of better options.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[jeffdwright2001]

And if I get tired of FG, I'll watch "Food Unwraped" on the Food Network.

Once food has been raped, it can't be "unwraped". Of course, I could be misinterpreting. Were you referring to Cherries?

[TheMojoPin]

I've got tons of better options.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

How would you know? You never watch it.

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