It just wouldn't be a presidential campaign without Republicans and their allies bringing out the dirtiest, most rotten, most dishonest and most shameless crap you can think of.

I'm speaking, of course, of the ad that's just come out from the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", a right-wing pro-Bush group that has close ties to the Bush campaign.

Their ad, which is running in a few markets in battleground states, appears to be timed to hit when Kerry needs to save his money. Unfortunately, for the SBVT gang, the media's already on to them.

But so many people who served with Kerry now say he's dishonest!
The SBVT ad presents several veterans who claimed they "served with Kerry". This has only a tenuous connection with the truth: none of the veterans in the ad actually served on Kerry's boat. In fact, it would appear that the only common demoninator between Kerry and the vets in the ad is that they served, at some point, in Vietnam.

But the doctor who treated Kerry says he's lying about his first purple heart!
The doctor in question, Louis Letson, is claiming he treated Kerry's wound. But the medical records clearly show that a different doctor treated Kerry, removing shrapnel from Kerry's arm. Letson, rather lamely, responds that he treated Kerry's wound, but had another doctor sign the records!

Letson also claims that the crewmen (or crewman) who were with Kerry told him, long ago, that they received no enemy fire, and that Kerry probably was wounded by their own shrapnel. But both of the crewmen who were with Kerry (there were two) say that they think they received enemy fire, and don't know the source of the shrapnel that hit Kerry.

But Kerry's old commanding officer also said the wound was superficial!
Kerry's former commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, didn't question the wound at the time (in fact, his reviews of Kerry were uniformly glowing). Moreover, Hibbard now claims that he saw only a scratch on Kerry's forearm, and assumes that was the wound. But the medical records, once again, don't lie: Kerry had shrapnel removed from above the elbow.

Have others been more grievously wounded in battle? Of course. But Kerry met the qualifications for the purple heart. All three times

A vet who said he was "there at the time" says Kerry didn't deserve his bronze star!
The man Kerry saved, Jim Rassmann, a Republican, has volunteered to campaign for Kerry because Kerry saved his life. The details, as told by Rasmussen and the five men under Kerry's command, are the same: Kerry saved Rasmussen despite incoming fire and considerable danger to himself.

Larry Thurlow, who claims "he was there" and that they took no hostile fire, was the commander of another swiftboat that was there at the time. Mr. Thurlow also received a bronze star for bravery in the same firefight. So, is he lying now when he says they weren't taking enemy fire, and Kerry's (and his) medals were awarded mistakenly? Or was he lying then when he received his own medal for valor under fire?

Needless to say, similar claims from the group are equally suspect. For all that is known, they're paying down-and-out vets to make false claims.

So, it has come down to this. It was almost a certainty that the right-wing whackjobs, in the great tradition of Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon, would set new lows in lying and slime. It was expected. But it remains a sad part of politics today that we have to deal with the scum of the earth. Let's hope a solid drubbing in November will convince the Republicans to send the right-wing loons packing.

Anyone interested in Kerry's past, including his Senate record and a good debunking of RNC myths about him would probably love this site. It's very thorough, and he brings a lot of things together from many sources.

Just listened to the Bush press conference on acceptance of some 9/11 Commission recommendations on the radio. He sounded tired, and his responses to several Kerry campaign talking points practically wrote Kerry's rebuttal for him.

The follow-up press conference was, as usual, rather softball in character. Here's the question I would like to have seen a reporter ask:

"Mr. President,
You initially opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Additionally, you fought the Commission's funding, its scope, its duration, giving the Commission documents and interviews with the Commission, both for yourself and for your staff.

Finally, many of the Commission's recommendations have been discussed publicly for more than two years, and you've not acted on them.

With that in mind, how do you respond to critics who charge that your adoption now of several Commission recommendations is an election-year ploy?"

From a White House press release:

VICE PRESIDENT: At first Senator Kerry said that he didn't really oppose the funding. He both supported and opposed it. (Laughter.) He said, and I quote, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) That sure clears things up. (Laughter.) But lately he's been saying he's proud that he and John Edwards voted no, and he explains that his decision was "complicated." (Laughter.) But funding American troops in combat should never be a complicated matter.

Oh, really, Mr. Cheney? Then perhaps you can explain this:

New York Times, October 22, 2003
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: APPROPRIATIONS;
White House Threatens a Veto Of Its Own Spending Bill for Iraq
by David Firestone
The White House threatened Tuesday to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq.

Looks like the issue was complicated enough for you to threaten to veto money for the troops.

Don't you just love people who really, really hate to tell the truth?

If you want a good indication that the Bush campaign is thrashing around, trying to get traction against Kerry, this should be of interest.

WASHINGTON, July 31 — President Bush's campaign plans to use the normally quiet month of August for a vigorous drive to undercut John Kerry by turning attention away from his record in Vietnam to what the campaign described as an undistinguished and left-leaning record in the Senate.

Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision.

What else can you say, but there they go again. Same old Kerry-bashing, anything-goes politics. They don't have a positive agenda to sell, and they don't have a record to run on, so they have to go back to slinging mud.

As I predicted, the Republican Convention is shaping up to be the "No-Mention Convention". No mention of the last four years, that is, and Bush's record of failure on virtually every measure.

America can do better!