And now for a commercial break.

Join me and Don Firth here to discuss a different aspect of the presidential election this year.

I think the examination of Kerry's military record is legitimate for the Republicans, because Kerry relied so heavily upon that record in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.

Is this below the belt campaign, clearly being orchestrated by Karl Rove and the Bush/Cheney campaign committee, the proper way of examining that record?

No.

Mary Garvey, you may not realize that the Miami Herald has reported in the last few hours that:

"GAINESVILLE, Fla. - A member of a group that has run ads attacking John Kerry's Vietnam War record pulled out of an anti-Kerry rally over the weekend after learning that it was promoted at the local headquarters for President Bush's campaign."

And the Washington Post today reports that:

"CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 21 -- The Bush campaign said late Saturday that it dismissed an adviser on veterans issues after learning that he is part of an independent group that has been running anti-Kerry ads.

The Bush campaign said Kenneth Cordier, who appears in a new advertisement to be aired by the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, will no longer serve in his voluntary position on Bush's veterans steering committee. A Bush spokesman said Cordier had not previously informed the campaign that he had been involved with the group, but the Kerry campaign said the matter provides evidence supporting its complaint to the Federal Election Commission alleging illegal cooperation between the campaign and the independent group."

Both of those two instances are likely a violation of US election laws, and the reason why Kerry has filed suit.

Reuters News Service (where most news outlets get their news from) has reported in the past hour that:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A veteran who has disputed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam war record has admitted he does not have "a single document" to prove Kerry fabricated reports of enemy fire that won him two medals.

Van Odell, a member of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that has spearheaded a campaign against Kerry's service record, said his was one of seven eye witness accounts and he was not being directed by the campaign of President George W. Bush.

Odell said he had met with Republican strategist Merrie Spaeth, a public relations consultant to his group, and once bought a home from Bob Perry, a large Republican donor from Texas and close associate of Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser."

Or that a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, who WAS present on the days in question in Vietnam with John Kerry, as the commander of the second swift boat, broke his 35 year silence about this yesterday, and came out in defense of the description of events that exist in the official military records the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth keep ignoring. You can read about his statement at the Voice of America website, but here is what they said a few hours ago:

"VOA News
22 Aug 2004, 13:59 UTC

A U.S. newspaper editor who served with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in Vietnam has defended the candidate's war record.
William Rood of The Chicago Tribune said in an interview published Sunday that he was "breaking 35 years of silence" because recent portrayals of Senator Kerry's actions were, in his view, wrong and smeared the reputations of the senator's platoon."

Additionally, the following Republican and Democratic senators have said this about the vicious attack on Kerry's character (from the Reuters article):

Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan added his voice to that of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Vietnam veteran who has also unsuccessfully urged Bush to denounce the ads.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said that while the group had "every right" to express their opinion, "we ought to get out of the character assassination business."

From today's CBS News story on the Chicago Tribune editor (the Trib is Chicago's most respected conservative newspaper, BTW):

"William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence Saturday about the Feb. 28, 1969 mission because recent reports of Kerry's actions in that battle are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune's Sunday editions.

Before the 1969 mission, Kerry told Rood and another officer to attack ambushers if U.S. crews came under attack. The swift boats following the new tactic had great success, said Rood, an editor on the Tribune's metropolitan desk.

Rood said allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue and that Kerry developed an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," Rood said in a first-person account published in the newspaper.

____________________________________________________

So despite the overwhelming evidence that now disputes the veracity of the "truth" the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are claiming to tell, and the fact that the Bush/Cheney campaign is now doing all it can to distance themselves from it's members who are working for the campaign by firing them from their campaign jobs, and the denunciation of this whole sorry debacle by Republicans and Democrats alike, you STILL BLINDLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH????????

That just shows your bigoted Republican partisanship has hijacked your rational thought processes, Mary. That makes you a true believer, and true believers are largely ignored by most reasonable minded people. So I wouldn't brag too loudly about the fact that despite being presented with facts, you prefer to believe the erroneous propaganda instead. People like you are generally shunned by reasonable people for being a little too looney.