I have to disagree with Senator McCain, both aspects of Kerry’s record are legitimate targets. Not only the anti war activites but the questions re: the propriety of his war record as well.

Kerry’s managed to tick off Bob Dole while I haven’t seen any really big push for Kerry from his democrat colleagues. That’s interesting either they’re not making statements or the statements are making the news cycle.

Is the Democrat party pulling away from Kerry? Is this Naked Gun 3.75, the smell of failure? Sure seems that way just this morning.

Posted by: skip at August 30, 2004 10:56 AM

Whew! That’s a relief! It’s nice to know that we can talk about a candidate’s past and it won’t upset our Philosopher King.

I’ve always liked John McCain, but who appointed him the arbiter of what is legitimate or appropriate?

As for his criticism of the SBVFT’s ads, screw him, and the censorship horse he rode in on. He is in no position to denigrate those men or their opinions and recollections. He can, and should, disagree with them, or say he doesn’t think they reflect the John Kerry he knows. But to call them dishonorable and dishonest is, well, dishonorable and disgraceful.

Posted by: TL at August 30, 2004 11:01 AM

Mc Cain will position himself where ever he thinks the media wants him. If they want him to denounce, then he’ll denounce away.

This keeps his face on the Sunday morning talk shows and maintains his place as the official arbitor of all that is good and fair and just in American Politics.

It’s a heavy burden, but he shoulders it willingly.

Posted by: skip at August 30, 2004 11:42 AM

While observing all this political waltzing among various players, it appears to me that this second round of ads on Kerry’s Anti-War efforts may carry more negative baggage than the first ad with its challenges to his war record. The “who-did-what-when” on combat ops in Viet Nam really is a He said-he said confrontation. The anti-war debate is legitimate fodder from which people can draw their own conclusions about Kerry’s overall character, judgement and integrity. By McCain stating it is also legitimate debate material, it takes away or dilutes ability for the Democrats declaring this ad being “dishonest or deplorable” without tainting McCain in the process. This is something they seem to be trying to avoid.

It should be interesting to see how this second ad, the McCain “passive endorsement” of it and whether it gets as emotional mileage as the first ad by the Swift Boat Vets achieved.

Ultimately, though, it again puts the Kerry camp on the defensive and impacts their ability to get a more issues laden message out.

The NY Times senior editor in a related story says that in all probability, had it not been for the internet and cable news coverage of the Swift Boat Vets challenges, they would not have covered this ad and the resulting fire storm it created.

Posted by: steve at August 30, 2004 01:18 PM

“John Kerry complains, ‘Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: “Bring it on”.’

Dear John, Bring it on. As usual, you have it wrong. You don’t have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He’s been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign. I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn’t about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I’ve never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved. This really isn’t about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, ‘the job isn’t finished.’ Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren’t in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn’t really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff ‘seared’ into your memory — especially since you want to have your finger on our nation’s nuclear trigger. … The trouble you’re having, John, isn’t about your medals or coming home early or getting lost — or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John. When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote ‘The New Soldier,’ which denounced those of us who served — and were still serving — on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me — and all of us who served in Vietnam — of committing terrible crimes and atrocities. On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops ‘had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam.’ And you admitted on television that ‘yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed.’ And for good measure you stated, ‘(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions … the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners.’ Your ‘antiwar’ statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here’s what some of them endured because of you, John: Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements ‘were proof I deserved to be punished.’ He wasn’t released until March 14, 1973. Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors ‘repeated incessantly’ your one-liner about being ‘the last man to die’ for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973. Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations ‘were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) … and a prime reason the war dragged on.’ He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973. John, did you think they would forget? … One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: ‘I would like to say something … to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I’m … very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families.’ Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?” —Oliver North, Lt. Col., USMC

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 30, 2004 04:31 PM

http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=271

Kerry’s Quagmire…
Mark Alexander
8/27/2004
(archive)

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams

There is a chronic state of superciliousness manifest in some members of Congress who are perennially re-elected by their loyal lemmings — an unmitigated arrogance called “Potomac Mentation Syndrome” (PMS). Its primary symptom is the angry projection of invincibility by its victim, and John Kerry, who’s been occupying a seat in the Senate for the last two decades, appears to have a terminal case.

Kerry, a privileged but neglected trust baby, hobnobbed with the rich and infamous Kennedy clan as a youngster and decided that one day, he wanted to follow in the footsteps of the original JFK. Fast forward 40 years, and, under the tutelage of his corpulent mentor, Teddy Kennedy, John F. Kerry is the Democrat presidential nominee.

Unfortunately for Kerry, he does not have the advantage of having JFK’s old man, Joe, on his team. The elder Kennedy massaged the Navy’s official record of Jack’s PT-109 debacle and had his version of the story released to the media, creating an instant “hero” and paving the way for JFK’s ascension through the House and Senate to the presidency.

Kerry, now gravely ill with PMS, thought he could ride high on his updated version of PT-109 and get away with it. But Ted Kennedy is no Joe Kennedy — and Kerry, who built his whole campaign on a foundation of embellished wartime heroics, is now bogged down in his personal Vietnam quagmire. Indeed, Kerry assumed he was bulletproof, but he’s taking far more hits now than he ever did in his abbreviated combat tour.

The opening salvo:

Last March, Demo National Committee loudmouth Terry McAuliffe (also in the tenacious grip of PMS) estimated that Kerry would have to win the hearts and minds of veterans in order to defeat George W. Bush. So he wrapped Kerry in his embellished war record and, a month later, took a cheap shot at President Bush, proclaiming that he was AWOL during his last year of service as an Air National Guard fighter pilot.

Right about now, McAuliffe and Kerry are wishing they’d never fired that shot. Much to their surprise, several Vietnam veterans groups had the audacity to take a gander at Kerry’s service record — both his record of “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” by slandering his fellow veterans while they were still fighting or captive in Vietnam, and his contrived record of heroic acts as evidenced by his impressive list of military decorations. By early May, those veterans were firing back at Kerry and his cadre.

Initially, Kerry took the defensive: “I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can’t account for his own service in the National Guard…criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served.” (Oops, another cheap shot at our National Guard and Reserve forces.)

Fortunately, President Bush can account for his service. He wanted to fly fighter jets, he earned his wings, and he logged many air defense hours in an F-102 Delta Dagger with the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG. Mr. Bush’s unit was subject to rotation in Vietnam under the Palace Alert Program (in fact, 15 F-102s were lost in Vietnam). With American involvement in Vietnam de-escalating by 1972, Bush was honorably discharged from his service with the ANG.

Of course, as noted in The Patriot many times before, George Bush’s most distinguished military service has been in his role as Commander-in-Chief since the 9/11 attack on our nation — one of the most difficult and challenging periods for any president since World War II.

Implicit in Kerry’s warning, however, is the notion that he, himself, volunteered for service in Vietnam. Remember Bill Clinton’s repetitive “Send me” paean at the Demo Convention? Try again. Kerry’s anti-military sentiments were well known when he was a student at Yale. After graduating, Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment so he could study in — where else? — Paris. His deferment denied, Kerry then calculated that he could avoid Vietnam by joining the Naval Reserves rather than getting drafted into the Army or Marines, where he would, likely, see combat. Kerry’s service record indicates that on 18 February 1966 he enlisted in the USNR under “inactive” status — and was activated when a slot opened for him in Officer Training School.

As fate would have it, Kerry’s reserve unit was activated, while the Bush’s ANG unit remained stateside — yet both circumstances were far beyond the control of these two junior officers. As for Kerry’s choice of Swift Boats, he told the Boston Globe last year, “I didn’t really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling….” This puts the lie to any assertion that Kerry “volunteered” for dangerous swift boat duty while George W. Bush somehow slunk off to fly fighter-jets.

Four months and a heap of medals:

Unable to avoid service in Vietnam, Kerry, infatuated with JFK and his mythical PT-109 heroics, worked his way into an assignment as a swift boat skipper. In under four months in the coastal regions of Vietnam, Kerry managed to collect a Bronze Star with combat “V”, a Silver Star and, of course, the requisite three Purple Hearts — which got him a quick ticket home to launch his political career.

But his medals are melting.

Regarding his Bronze Star Kerry claimed, at the Demo-confab, that he got the medal for actions on the night of 13 March 1969. It was then, he said, after a mine explosion and while under fire, that five swift boats in the patrol team fled the area while he kept his boat back to rescue Lt. James Rassmann. Kerry’s campaign now admits that he fled while the other boats remained on station, and returned later to pull Rassmann out of the water — the same Rassmann who’d been dumped into the water when Kerry’s boat sped off.

Regarding his Silver Star (the nation’s third-highest decoration after the Medal of Honor and Service Crosses), it was awarded for “gallantry” after Kerry’s boat was fired on and his gunner fired back, wounding a young combatant on the shore. Kerry then beached his boat (a reckless dereliction of duty), chased the wounded VC around the corner of a hut, and shot him. Gallantry?

Further, Kerry’s DD 214 Record of Transfer or Separation (posted on his website), lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor) — but, according to the Navy Awards Manual, the “V” Combat Distinguishing Device is never awarded with the Silver Star. Stranger yet, Kerry’s Silver Star has not one citation, but three — each one a revision of the previous, and the last revision made more than 20 years after the first.

For an excellent analysis of these altered citations, link to http://kerry-04.org/war/citations.php and read the report by Henry Mark Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, and Erika Holzer, a lawyer and co-author, with Professor Holzer, of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service. (A second edition is forthcoming with a new preface entitled “John Kerry: The Ultimate Fake Warrior.”)

According to the Holzers, “John Kerry may soon learn that three citations for a single Silver Star is two too many.”

One burning question yet to be answered is, who prepared the “Personal Award Recommendations” for these two decorations? In all probability, they were authored by Kerry himself — whose embellishment of the details has now been questioned by credible witnesses.

As for those three Purple Hearts, this week, Kerry has backed off of his first medal claim that he was hit by hostile fire, because it was discovered that he wrote in his journal nine days after the incident in question, “We hadn’t been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven’t been shot at are allowed to be cocky.” Indeed, the injury in question (a small abrasion on his arm which was treated with the equivalent of Neosporin and a Band-Aid) was most likely self-inflicted, and Kerry’s request for a Purple Heart was flatly rejected by both his treating physician and command — until he re-applied through an alternate chain of command some weeks later.

The circumstances around his second and third Purple Hearts are equally questionable.

Portrait of a hero:

Remember those heroic images of John Kerry in Vietnam in the introductory preceding his big entry at the Demo-confab? Well, Kerry reenacted those scenes, which his subordinates filmed with his Super-8 hand-held movie camera. The book “Unfit For Command” notes, “Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he’d recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns.”

Indeed, a few years back, Kerry’s hometown paper, The Boston Globe (far left of The New York Times) noted his Vietnam self-portraits “reveal something indelible about the man who shot them — the…young man…so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109.”

Indeed he had. Thomas Vallely, one of Kerry’s closest political advisers, said in an interview last year, “John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely.”

Seared into memory, or just pan-fried:

There is plenty of additional evidence of Kerry’s Vietnam fabrications, like his claimed exploits in Cambodia. “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies…. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which president Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.” Of course, Kerry was, by all accounts, never anywhere near Cambodia, and Nixon wasn’t even president in 1968. So much for that “memory that was seared, seared” into him.

The Kerry record is replete with examples of such “seared memories.” For example, this past MLK Day, Kerry told a captive audience, “I remember well April, 1968 — I was serving in Vietnam — a place of violence — when the news reports [of King’s murder] reached me and my shipmates.” Kerry wasn’t even in Vietnam until November, 1968.

Aid and comfort to the enemy:

When Kerry returned stateside, he dedicated himself to slandering American military personnel still fighting — and captive — in Vietnam. In his 1971 congressional testimony, he claimed, “[American military personnel in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to…the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

After his testimony, he told the media, “There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed….”

The consequences of Kerry’s anti-American actions in 1971 were far-reaching. An upcoming documentary, “Stolen Honor,” includes devastating testimony from former POWs about how Kerry’s testimony was “thrown in their faces” as they were tortured by their captors. Or, as POW Paul Galanti says in a devastating new Swiftees’ ad, “John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades took torture to avoid saying.”

Enter the Swiftvets:

In his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Kerry said, “I pledge that those who wore the uniform of the United States of America will have a voice and a champion in the Oval Office.” (Of course, they do now!) However, Kerry is trying to silence “those who wore the uniform of the United States of America” who are challenging his record. Kerry was able to muster 14 swift boat vets who support him. On the other hand, there are 254 swift boat veterans who say Kerry is a fraud and is “Unfit for Command.” Do the math!

The pundits think the Swiftees will disappear in September, after the Republican convention. We think they will remain a factor until Kerry sets his military record straight — which he won’t.

It should be noted that The Patriot’s position on Kerry’s account of his service in Vietnam is tempered by the fact that our staff and National Advisory Committee rosters include many military veterans — some of whom were decorated Vietnam vets and one of whom spent seven years as Ho Chi’s guest in the Hanoi Hilton after his F-105 was shot down. He was subjected to all manner of torture while Kerry was busy accusing his “fellow veterans” of war crimes and meeting with VC Communists in Paris.

In every case, our colleagues, who came home with Purple Hearts, also brought home injuries that left them, in most cases, badly scarred and mutilated; some will limp to their grave. They don’t wear those medals on their lapels and don’t ask for privileged parking spaces. They love their nation and served their countrymen with dignity, humility and honor. They are, in short, great American Patriots.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is, at best, a phony and fraud. At worst, he is a traitor. Not only is he “Unfit for Command,” but he should be prosecuted for “providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war” and disqualified for public office.

Please join more than 125,000 of your fellow Patriots who have already signed a letter asking that Kerry by held accountable for his actions. The Patriot will release this letter to the media in September, and though there would obviously be no action on this prosecution prior to Kerry’s defeat in November (yes, we are confident he will be defeated), we believe he is not fit to serve in the Senate and should be removed. To sign the letter, link to — http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/

Quote of the week…

“[T]hree Purple Hearts? I mean, the first one whether he ought to have a Purple Heart. He got two in one day — [Kerry] never bled that I know of. They were all superficial wounds. As far as I know, he never spent one day in the hospital, I don’t think he draws any disability pay. He doesn’t have any disability. And he’s boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam…. Maybe he should apologize to all the other two-and-a-half million veterans who served. He wasn’t the only one who was in Vietnam. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That’s probably why he’s talking about his war record, which is pretty confused.” —Retired Senator Bob Dole, who was severely wounded in action with the 10th Mountain Division in Italy during WW II

Posted by: DevilDoc at August 30, 2004 04:33 PM

All of kerry’s lies are legitimate targets, and the swift-boat veterans charges are neither dishonorable nor dishonest. Those are legal sworn affidavits, and kerry must meet the challenge directly to dismiss them if he says they are not true.
Kerry MUST open ALL his records and journals to dismiss those charges. No damn way should he be given a free pass, especially since the democrats have been hounding and lying about Bush’s, which he opened completely.

We even have another of kerry’s commanding officers calling Kerry a liar, and he’s not even part of the swift boat vet group.

A retired admiral
who was with John Kerry when they were patrolling the Mekong Delta in a Boston Whaler skimmer on Dec. 2, 1968 has come forward with an account challenging Kerry’s claim that he was wounded by enemy fire that day - an action for which he was awarded the Purple Heart.

There was no fire from the enemy,” said William L. Schachte Jr. “Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher).”

Schachte’s account, first obtained by commentator Robert Novak for his Friday column, is the first from an eyewitness that challenges the circumstances of Kerry’s Dec. 2 injury.

Because he was so well placed, Schachte’s version severely undermines Kerry defenders who say no critics of his claimed battle injuries were not aboard any of the boats on which he served.

Reports Novak:

“Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War.

“The third crew member was an enlisted man whose name Schachte did not remember.

“At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer - code-named ‘Batman’ - fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry’s M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and “I heard a “thunk.” There was no fire from the enemy.’”

“I was astonished by Kerry’s version” of the Dec. 2 injury as reported in Kerry’s campaign biography, “Tour of Duty,” Schachte told Novak.

Schachte is not a member of the Swift-boat Veterans for Truth and told the columnist that he decided to come forward only after seeing Kerry defender Lanny Davis challenge his credibility on the Aug. 12 broadcast of CNN’s “Crossfire.”

Petition

John Kerry is, at best, a phony and fraud. At worst, he is a traitor. Not only is he “Unfit for Command,” but he should be prosecuted for “providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war” and disqualified for public office.

Please join more than 125,000 of your fellow Patriots who have already signed a letter asking that Kerry by held accountable for his actions. The Patriot will release this letter to the media in September, and though there would obviously be no action on this prosecution prior to Kerry’s defeat in November (yes, we are confident he will be defeated), we believe he is not fit to serve in the Senate and should be removed. To sign the letter, visit http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/

people are serious about this, even though mainstream media isn’t willing to investigate “their boy”

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 30, 2004 10:46 PM

My dad sounds a lot like Bob Dole. He was knocked off his feet by a German 88 while marching up an icy mountain road. He never got a Purple Heart. I think he thought they were for pussies.

He never even told me he was a DAV until after I completed college. It just never occurred to him that the government might owe him or his kids anything for the sacrifice.

John Kerry couldn’t carry my dad’s sweat socks. He doesn’t want anyone to make a big deal out of his medals (ribbons?) with the “V” or without it now, he just wants it all to go away. Oh, but it made a big difference to him when he piled on Admiral Borda’s wearing of the “V”, which resulted in Borda blowing his brains out.

Honor, integrity and your word - take them away and there’s not much left - except maybe your wife’s 5 houses.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 30, 2004 10:59 PM

The “who-did-what-when” on combat ops in Viet Nam really is a He said-he said confrontation.

Like heck it is. Kerry decorated himself by lying. And, there is proof he did so. It’s NOT just one man’s word against another. he defied a commanding officer and went around him to get a medal. He falsified a report for another, and another. His silver star with a “V” isn’t even valid, plus it has an edorsment by an officer who never did so, also not a swift boat vet.
In fact, it’s illegal for kerry to even display that forged paper on his website, under penalty of LAW.

Here is the statement from Navy Secretary John Lehman, and lets not forget that this fraud was committed years after kerry’s 4 month medal grabbing tour.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips28.html

Kerry citation a ‘total mystery’ to ex-Navy chief

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman’s signature.

“It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me,” he said.

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part: “By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself….”

Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: “I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen.” The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

Kerry senior adviser Michael Meehan could not be reached for comment on Kerry’s records.

Kerry can’t duck this stuff, even if McCain makes disgusting comments in support, and lefty media ignores the story

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 30, 2004 10:59 PM