Posted by Mark Silva at 10:10 am CDT
One should always play to one's strengths. The Republicans believe theirs is their concern for national security. The Democrats believe theirs is their concern for the average American.
But what happens when the two talk past one another – such as today, with the president delivering a weekly radio address touting his role as a world leader and the Democrats airing a radio address warning that Republicans are ready to steal your Social Security? You decide, listening to the tales of the two.
Bush, with his weekly radio address today, recounted his week at the United Nations General Assembly and pointed to his meetings at the White House this week and next week with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan – all reminders, as election time nears for members of Congress and congressional candidates, that the president is a player on the world stage at a pivotal point in the nation's history.
The Democrats are taking the campaign debate back home this week, warning voters that the GOP is intent on undermining Social Security.
The party's response to the president's radio address comes from Ed Perlmutter, a candidate for Congress in Colorada who contends that the GOP is intent on privatizing Social Security and that his opponent is a "rubber-stamper.''
Perlmutter, a state legislator, is challenging Rep. Rick O'Donnell (R., Colo.), one of the Republicans whom Democrats are targeting in a bid to reclaim control of the House, one of 15 turnovers the party will need to capture a House majority.
Bush, who has a week full of campaign fundraising appearances planned for Republicans from Connecticut to Ohio and Tennessee next week, is doing his best to avert that takeover. The president plans to hit the road for candidates in October.
This is a text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. This week, I traveled to New York City to address the United Nations General Assembly. In my speech to the leaders gathered there, I spoke about a more hopeful world that is within our reach -- a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.
"I said that every nation must make a choice: We can support the moderates and reformers working for change across the broader Middle East, or we can yield the future to the terrorists and extremists. America has made its choice - we're standing with the moderates and reformers.
"In New York, I met with two such leaders, President Talabani of Iraq and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. In my meeting with President Talabani, I told him that America will continue to support Iraq's democratic government as it makes the tough decisions necessary to bring security and prosperity to the Iraqi people. I assured President Talabani that America will not abandon the Iraqi people in their struggle to defeat the terrorists and build a free society in the heart of the Middle East.
"In my meeting with President Abbas, I told him that America remains committed to the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. President Abbas shares this goal. He's working hard to oppose violent extremists and build a society in which the Palestinian people can raise their children in peace and hope.
"By supporting moderate leaders such as President Abbas, the United States can help Israelis and Palestinians build a more hopeful future and achieve the peace we all want in the Holy Land.
"Next week, I will host a meeting at the White House with two courageous leaders, President Karzai of Afghanistan and President Musharraf of Pakistan. These two leaders are working to defeat the forces of terrorism and extremism. Under President Musharraf, Pakistan is siding with the forces of freedom and moderation and helping to defend the civilized world. Many Pakistani forces have given their lives in the fight against terrorists. President Musharraf understands the stakes in the war on terror because the extremists have tried more than once to assassinate him. They know he's a threat to their aspirations because he's working to build modern democratic institutions that could provide an alternative to radicalism. And it is in America's interest to help him succeed.
"In Afghanistan, President Karzai continues the work of building a safer and brighter future for his nation. Today, forces from more than 40 countries, including members of the NATO Alliance, are bravely serving side-by-side with Afghan forces. These forces are fighting the extremists who want to bring down the free government that the people of Afghanistan have established. America and its allies will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan as they defend their democratic gains. Working with President Karzai's government, we will defeat the enemies of a free Afghanistan and help the Afghan people build a nation that will never again oppress them or be a safe haven for terrorists.
"In the broader Middle East, the world faces a straightforward choice: We can allow that region to continue on the course it was headed before September the 11th, and a generation from now our children will face a region dominated by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons; or we can stop that from happening by confronting the ideology of hate and helping the people of the Middle East build a future of hope. All civilized nations, especially those in the Muslim world, are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism. By working together, we will roll back this grave threat to our way of life, we will help the people of the Middle East claim their freedom, and we will leave a safer and more hopeful world for our children and grandchildren.
"Thank you for listening.''
This is the text of Ed Perlmutter's address for the Democrats:
"Good morning, and happy new year to those of you celebrating Rosh Hashanah. I'm Ed Perlmutter from Colorado and I'm proud to be joined here today by my parents.
"My fellow Americans, the fight to protect Social Security is back.
"Republicans from George Bush to Karl Rove to the Republicans in Congress have pledged, as recently as this month, to put Social Security back on the agenda early in 2007.
"When Republicans say they are going to reform Social Security, they mean they are going to privatize it, and by privatizing it they'll cut the guaranteed monthly benefit we have promised generations of Americans.
"We can and we must stop them - right now, before it's too late.
"Just last year, Democrats stood up to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, and fought back against this dangerous proposal and defeated it. It was defeated because the overwhelming majority of Americans know how risky it is to privatize Social Security. The GOP scheme would threaten senior citizens who worked hard, played by the rules, and simply seek to live their golden years with some financial stability and security.
"Republicans in Congress have been consistent rubber stamps for the misguided policies of the Bush administration. Not only do they want to privatize Social Security, they are raiding the Social Security trust fund as well.
"Let me give you an idea of where their priorities lie. At the same time that they are taking money from the trust fund that seniors and people with disabilities depend on, they are sending billions of dollars to special interests in giveaways that taxpayers are paying for. They are preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices and are doing nothing to stop oil companies from gouging Americans at the gas pump.
"There has never been a more critical moment to ensure that we take our nation in a new direction.
"My opponent and his Republican friends in Washington must be fans of the TV show Jeopardy. Because that's the position they'll put seniors in if they succeed in their plan to privatize Social Security.
"Seniors all over America rely on Social Security every month and if the GOP plan passes, future generations could see their benefits slashed.
"In my congressional district here in Colorado, there are nearly 82,000 Social Security recipients. Both here, and across the country, the number of retirees is expected to climb even higher in the next several years, making this fight to protect Social Security even more important.
"Democrats are fighting to protect Social Security and future retirees are counting on us to succeed.
"In the last 11 years, my opponent, like Republicans in Congress, has demonstrated very dangerous positions on Social Security. In 1995, when he worked for Newt Gingrich, he advocated "slaying" Social Security, and even called it "un-American.''
"Let me be clear: committing ourselves to retirement security is about as American as Congress can get.
"In 1995, my opponent advocated abandoning seniors and today he is abandoning the truth. I will not cut benefits for retirees and in Congress, I will fight to guarantee retirement security for seniors here in Colorado and all across the country.
"Right now, on issues ranging from Medicare to gas prices, college tuition and the war in Iraq, President Bush and Republicans in Congress are taking us in the wrong direction. We need new leadership in Washington to right our course so that our government gets back to the business of fighting for families.
"If you are like most Americans, and you want to change the direction our country is headed in, you have to start by changing the people you send to Congress. That is why this election is so very important.
"When I get to Washington I will continue the fight that I have waged for families here in Colorado. I will work hand-in-hand with Democrats and Republicans to try to heal the partisan divide raging in Congress because seniors and their families are counting on us.
"I'm Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, thanks for listening.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Ever notice that it seems as though we are always telling countries that they need to make a choice? With us or against us. What ever happened to statesmanship? The fastest gun in the west politics are growing old. If his type of
politicking is getting old here..what about his international politics? I'm sure dealing with China like that gets us zippo! They don't need to be told, or worse yet ,they don't even want to listen to that kind of rhetoric.
Now I'm also sure that because of this statement
that I'll get a few,Have the terrorists to dinner, have some tea and crumpets, love those head-choppers and more from the mans man testosterone crowd..but save it..to make that leap of faith from wanting statesmanship to a
terrorist sympathizer is absured.
Posted by: bill r. | September 23, 2006 12:43 PM
The Republican party has NOTHING to run on.........nothing..,that's where Karl Rove comes in for them, to confuse,distort,smear,and scare people,and finally...hope,that they have succeded in pulling the wool over the American voters eyes .....again....
Posted by: John E. | September 23, 2006 1:05 PM
Note to Mark S., Frank J. and all the other Swamp posters and MONITOR.
I have some suggestions to make this site a bit better.
First the compliment:
It is a simple, easy site. Some are cluttered, and you can't find what you want to get to! This one is not.
But!
I think it would be good to expand your 'LAST TEN POSTS' to be:
"LAST 20(TWENTY) POSTS'
Why?
'Some say' interesting, active posts are pushed off the easy to access panel too quickly. It would be easier to continue the conversation without having to delve down into the archive so soon.
It can be irritating when uninteresting posts, like say, 'Obama has Breakfast, Reads Paper', or 'Loud Grunting Heard in Denny Hastert's Office', pushes a real active, lively post off the front page.
Second, the complaint;
Why so slow to post? If one of you regulars are downtown, go over to the Tribune Tower and see if some guy is enjoying a butt in the alley, and tell him to get his butt back upstairs and catch up on the posts! Jeez.
Hey, he or she may have a life, but have pity on the rest of us!
How about it RRD, JonhE, Bill R, Bill, Dale, Juanito, JDJohnD, and don't forget SurfGirl? Are ya with me on this?!
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2006 2:20 PM
C.Morris,
I'm with you all the way on your compliment, suggestion and complaint, even though you left me off your list. I mean, I know I don't post as often these days, but geez, have I been forgotten already? Sniff. ;-)
Posted by: Dienne | September 23, 2006 3:19 PM
billr...You are so ignorant of world events and the politics regarding them.Your post makes no sense at all,just left wing blither,blather.
Clinton and Carter tried "statesmanship",it worked well with Carter and the hostage crisis....didn't it,billr?After 444 days,a show of American muscle by a new president,they were released.
And with B.J......oh well,we all know history,or do you?Ya wanna start with how well statesmanship worked with Yasser Arafat?
Keep dreaming....
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 23, 2006 4:06 PM
I am. Hey Guys and Girls French Papers are saying Bin-Laden is dead. Good bye burn in the fires. I just hope its true
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 23, 2006 4:57 PM
Yes,it looks as if Osama is toast at such a young age of 49.It has to be real tough to live in a cave without medical attention and knowing the leader of the FREE WORLD is in your every shadow.
Thank-you Mr.President for the pressure you put upon him that eventually led to his demise.
I hope the 72 virgins all look like Rosie O'Donnell.....May you rot in hell Osama!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 23, 2006 5:52 PM
Gee Paulo...forgive my ignorance. why don't you share your sharp conservative mind with us and tell us why statesmanship that has worked so well for so many great leaders doesn't work. I'm sure it won't be right wing blither or some blathering from some redneck man's man. Tell me,
the ignorant one, why should we shoot first ask questions second. I wait with baited breath.
Posted by: bill r. | September 23, 2006 6:02 PM
Dienne,
No! Not forgotten.
Stop the sniffing.
I just knew listing everyone would be silly.
Let me include you and Janet and OHCD and....see, there are more!
Terry! Neil! I can't do it! Too much pressure!
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2006 6:37 PM
Dale P.
The BBC News web site has something on it too.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2006 6:39 PM
Paulo,
Your suggestion that anyone else might be ignorant of world events is somewhat rich, given the steady stream of copper-bottomed balderdash that seems to spew forth from your keyboard on an irritatingly regular basis.
If you are a sovereign state – such as the US – then statesmanship is a smart route to follow. If you are not then bombing and killing in order to get your way is – I suppose – one of the choices you have. That Carter attempted to rescue the hostages through a military solution suggests a combination of statemanship and force. Where's your problem with this?
You would do well, Paulo, to try to get your head around just how much damage this administration has done to the image of the United States worldwide. Macho posturing doesn’t get respect – it gets laughed at. If it is your contention that a military option, playing hardball, staying the course – whatever tired cliché you choose to apply – is the way for the world’s one remaining superpower to deport itself c.2006 – then, to be blunt, we are all screwed.
It is people like you, Paulo, that are destroying my second home. I have a vested interest in a strong and fair America. It is where I live for much of the year. It is where the people for whom I care about make their homes, and go about their business. It is not a place that I wish to see spoilt.
Your crack about Carter tells me more about you than just about any other post. Carter was in many ways an unfortunate president, but he did appear to boast some semblance of honour. That is a word that cannot be applied to the current incumbent. Your tired smuttiness concerning Clinton is indicative more of adolescent puerility than political judgement; it is not my place to hazard conjecture as to the basis for your oral fixations, but I will assert that I do find them tedious. If it is your contention that the Bush administration has done a good job, then I would suggest that a class in remedial math would be a good move
I don’t know how far you’ve travelled, Paulo, but, if you’ve been beyond your front gate within the last few years, it’s been with your eyes shut. You, and the legion of incompetents to whom you appear to profess undying loyalty would do better to get out more and witness first hand the impact that US policies are now having, not just on the rest of the world, but on the rest of the world’s view of America. Put simply, Paulo, people like you are the reason that people like me have little reason for optimism. I thank you for that.
C Morris and Dienne, you both make good points.
Paulo, you’re a buffoon.
I am finished for today.
Posted by: OHCD | September 23, 2006 7:53 PM
Hey Bill R!
Ever notice that the only war these guys don't like is Kosovo, which Clinton won without suffering ONE US combat death?
Trent Lott tried to pass legislation ending our involvement because there was no plan for victory, and he even wanted to set a deadline date for withdrawal.
He later lied about it. Just google 'trent lott kosovo'.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2006 8:42 PM
C. Morris,
YES!!! FINALLY!!!
It really is annoying,some days the Swamp will stop posting for 5-6 hrs during the day,or will stop printing posts at 4:30or 5:00pm until the following day.
On weekends,when most people have time to really collect their thoughts and vent,you might as well forget it.
The Swamp is basically shut down on weekends.
During election season, I'm pretty sure this makes alot of people very upset.They want to speak out,or get their message out,or whatever,and they can't.
I know that the Trib co is having some financial problems,and some performance problems(the Cubs come to mind).
Sombody is falling asleep at the switch in the main office,maybe we need to start making some phone calls???
Posted by: John E. | September 23, 2006 9:19 PM
C.Morris...Kosovo was not popular with the right.
There were muslims but no oil!
Posted by: bill r. | September 24, 2006 7:12 AM
OHCD,
Another outstanding post from you,well done!!
Don't bother with Paulo,I have gone down that road with him,and his bud John D./JD.,and I felt like I needed to take a shower after each exchange I had with those two Stooges.
Osama Bin Laden IS NOT DEAD,he is just being used by Karl Rove,and his minions again to secure the Christian Consevatives vote for the Republicans this fall.
This is what really ticks me off.
George W. Bush,Cheney,Rove,and Co have used Osama Bin Laden for political gain ever since 9/11.
Dubya even tied the 9/11 attacks to the Iraq War during his "non-political" 9/11 speech this past month.
OHCD, Karl Rove,and his boys are just throwing things out there,hoping that the Paulo's of the world grab onto them,and run to the voting booth,and vote Republican this fall.
P.S. OHCD,..Tell Tony Blair that I said not to let the door hit him on the way out of office,also tell Prince Charles to quit wearing skirts,and get a real job.
Posted by: John E. | September 24, 2006 11:04 AM
Hey guys and gals,
go to 'Musharraf's Book Deal'
N.L has a new story posted, and I think Dale P is in it.
Others!
Posted by: C.Morris | September 24, 2006 1:54 PM
Note to Mark S., Frank J. and all the other Swamp posters and MONITOR.
I have some suggestions to make this site a bit better... Are ya with me on this?!
Posted by: C.Morris | Sep 23, 2006 2:20:55 PM
C.Morris, I'm sorry for the late response. Yes, those are great suggestions! I'm with you all the way.
Posted by: Juanito | September 24, 2006 2:00 PM
All:
I've said this before. I cheer the demise of Osama bin Laden -- if it hasn't indeed happened yet, then whenever.
However, our problem still remains. Islamism or Jihadism is bigger than one man.
Posted by: Juanito | September 24, 2006 2:14 PM
Dale P.
Get on over to 'Musharraf's Book Deal' blog. I think Neutral Lady put you in one of her 'stories'!
Paulo,
I know, Carter's military effort to rescue the Iranian hostages failed, but in the end, all the hostages survived. A military assault may have killed many of them. We will never know.
Your distain for Carter shows you are not looking at the whole man.
He was US Navy Nuclear Engineer who worked under Ad. Rickover during the early 50's playing a huge role in developing our nuclear strike capable Navy.
You could say Carter helped give Reagan the tools to win the cold war.
You know, it's just a matter of giving credit where credit is due.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 24, 2006 2:35 PM
John E.
I'll pass your comments on to Blair - but given that he speaks only with the Lord - or so his demeanour suggests - I have little hope. Though I do echo your comments - along with an increasingly irritable UK population.
As far as Prince Charles goes, I've tried everything - he's been listed on Ebay, donated to the Smithsonian, left at the Church door late at night, but still can't any takers. Kind of ironic that, when I write out my tax check later this month, half of it will be going to regime change, and half to regime maintenance.
OBL could well be dead - looks like George and Karl have new best friends both in Tehran and Islamabad, so maybe his contract has been cancelled.
Bombs away
OHCD
Posted by: OHCD | September 24, 2006 2:36 PM
You could say Carter helped give Reagan the tools to win the cold war.
You know, it's just a matter of giving credit where credit is due.
Posted by: C.Morris | Sep 24, 2006 2:35:57 PM
C.Morris,
I assume you'll agree with me that Reagan has gotten a lot of undue credit for long running events that culminated on his watch. The Iran hostages crisis is just one example. They were released on or about the day of his first inaugaration -- so his administration couldn't have had very much to do with their release. Yet Republicans like us to believe it was Ronny's doing.
The same with the Cold War. A continuous string of presidents starting with Truman "fought" it. In fact, it was arguably more of a Liberal victory, since they were the ones increasing defense spending through the 60s. Plus Gorbachev must be given his due for the critical (if unwitting) role he played.
[As I raise my glass) here's to credit where it is due!
Posted by: Juanito | September 24, 2006 5:00 PM
Yes, I am in general agreement.
In fact, I give general credit to every US, UK, USSR and other nations political leaders for resisting the sometimes very strong pressure to "launch now!" from their assorted military leaders.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 24, 2006 6:07 PM
Coming out to play, Paulo?
Posted by: OHCD | September 24, 2006 6:58 PM
Juanito,I raise my glass to your ignorance of history.
The hostages were released 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in.Bush 41,was director of the c.i.a. with many connections around the world and basically sent word to Iran that if the hostages were not released "after" Reagan took office....negotiations would be replaced by might.
As far as Reagan ending the cold war....he thought MAD (mutually assured destruction)was immoral,increased the defense budget to one trillion dollars and started the development of S.D.I or "starwars"...(The Soviet Union being a communistic state could not even try to compete with a free market and basically imploded)...all due to a man with vision.And if ya don't believe me,ask Gorbachev,those were his words.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 24, 2006 8:42 PM
Coming out to play Paulo?
Posted by: OHCD | September 24, 2006 8:54 PM
C. Morris, yes those are good suggestions for improving The Swamp. An even better suggestion, though, would be for the Tribune reporters to be more objective and even-handed. For instance, five posts on George Allen and maccaca, but nothing on the DNC ad that riled up Latino leaders?
Regarding the Carter debate: Sorry, folks, but he was a disaster as a president and has been a disaster as an ex-president. While in many respects he was an honorable man, he let this country down during his presidency and his actions in the past 10 years or so have been shameful. He was the one who made it so Clinton signed into a failed agreement with North Korea. He has given his blessing to fake elections like those in Venezuala. He has criticized current presidents, he did it to Clinton and has gone over the edge with Bush. Bush the Father, Reagan, Nixon and as far as I know Johnson, never spoke of sitting presidents the way Carter has. I used to have some respect for Carter for his decency but no more. He has embarrassed this country and shamed this country. And the main reason the Iranians freed the hostages on Reagan's inauguration is because they knew he wouldn't screw around like Carter did. They wanted nothing to do with a real leader and one who would not put up with holding Americans hostage.
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2006 8:45 AM
I can't wait to see the reasons from the right why the leaked intelligence report showing that Iraq has made the terrorist threat worse, is faulty. This comes from "our" intelligence! Not some leftist report.
Posted by: bill r. | September 25, 2006 9:12 AM
Thanks, everyone for the support on my suggestions for minor changes.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 25, 2006 10:25 AM
Bill R., let's look at things this way: Why did our invasion of Afghanistan NOT cause more terrorists, but our invasion of Iraq "did"?
And what happened that caused all the terrorist activity in the 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years prior to Sept. 11? Why did the World Trade Center get bombed in 1993? Why did the U.S. embassies get bombed in 1998? What caused the terrorists in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s?
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2006 10:26 AM
I'm with ya, C Morris. Posting here on weekends is a waste of time. I'd love more responsiveness and transparency in the posting process.
Posted by: Bill | September 25, 2006 11:06 AM
"Bill R., let's look at things this way: Why did our invasion of Afghanistan NOT cause more terrorists, but our invasion of Iraq "did"?"
John D,
You seem to be building a straw man here.
Of course terrorists have been with us for long time, and not just attacking us.
IRA, Bader Meinhoff, Red Brigades, Morrocan Separatists. Many more.
And regarding Afg. The terrorists were already there! That's why there were no sig. demonstrations against going in there.
And a big job remains to get them out of there. We may be failing there as we speak.
Iraq was a mistake.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 25, 2006 1:09 PM
John D.your facts as to the release of the hostages are in error. President Carter spent the three days before the inauguration working the phones tirelessly to acheive the hostages release. It was because of this groundwork that they were eventually freed, and a show of contempt to Carter that it was not allowed to happen until Reagan took office. President Reagan's people were not involved in the negotiations. Now the threats Reagan made as a candidate may have played a small part, it was the hard work of the Carter administration that got it done.
As to the whole of Carter's presidency, I would agree it was a failure, but not through lack of trying. When we had an energy crisis Carter ordered the thermostats be lowered and he himself appeared on television asking Americans to conserve energy and admitted that he was wearing longjohns to stay warm. He also called in mayors from all over America and brought them to Camp David to listen to their opinions. he then sat there and wrote down what they had to say on a yellow pad. So say what you will about his failures in office, I would probably agree with you more often than not, but please don't say the man didn't try. As far as his character, well there you're out to lunch. The man is a decent and as honorable man as I have seen in my lifetime. he is also a skilled a negotiator as our country has ever seen. This man believes in diplomacy rather than telling sovereign nations they are either with us or against us. this man never needed "us vs. them" he always realized that, in the end, we all share the same fate there is no them, just us.
Posted by: Dean G. | September 25, 2006 4:57 PM
Dean G.
Good points.
Not once have the Carter critics responded to my posts pointing out Carter's critical work as a Navy nuclear engineer. He worked under Rickover to help develop our navy's nuclear strike capability.
As I have said before; his work in the early 50's handed all subsequent presidents, including RR, the ability to win the Cold War.
It's a simple matter of giving credit where credit is due. All that talk that he was nothing more than a peanut farmer was just RNC agitprop.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 26, 2006 9:15 AM
John D,
Regarding Carter; It's not just him criticizing the current prez.
Many of Bush's own administrators, intel. people, generals, are finding in their consciences the need to speak out against this president.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 26, 2006 12:14 PM
After reading through this thread again I've come up with another question for John D.: Since when is it a bad thing for ANYONE (including ex-Presidents) to criticize the President?? Not only is this the right of every citizen, it is the DUTY of every citizen. Yet somehow the current admistration doesn't beleive this and has convinced some Americans of this ridiculous belief. What has happened to this once great nation?
Posted by: Dean G. | September 26, 2006 3:31 PM
Funny, Lefters, that when a few Republicans criticized Bush over Bosnia, yoy folks and your abetters in the liberal media, said they were unpatriotic for criticizing the president while we had troops in harm's way. Also, Bush I never criticized Clinton, nor did Reagan, nor did Ford. Nixon never criticized Carter. Johnson never criticized Nixon.
Posted by: John D | September 27, 2006 10:29 AM