I responded to a comment in the thread immediately below this one, but I also wanted to front page my response and add a little.

Michael from Blog for Arizona (great site, go check it out) expressed concern that the Vote Vets ad could backfire on us because it's allegedly not true according to a report by the website factcheck.org. In fact, Media Matters refutes the FactCheck report, finding it inaccurate and misleading.

From Media Matters:

Summary: In defending Sen. George Allen against a new television advertisement criticizing his 2003 vote on a Democratic amendment that would have increased National Guard funding for body armor, The Arizona Republic falsely suggested -- and the website FactCheck.org falsely asserted -- that Allen and his Republican colleagues have never voted against supplemental funding for body armor.

Essentially the FactCheck argument is that because Senator Mary Landrieu didn't use the specific words "body armor" in her amendment (that Jon Kyl and George Allen and others voted against), the Vote Vets ad is misleading.

Of course, in her remarks introducing her amendment, Landrieu did state that body armor was among those items intended for the military to purchase with the additional approximately $1 billion. Senator Carl Levin, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, also backed her up.

In essence, FactCheck was mincing and twisting words. If it was deliberate, it was because they wanted to be able to say "both sides do it". I hope it was accidental.

Let's be clear: Jon Kyl voted against giving our troops the resources they need to stay alive. He may talk a tough game, but his votes - including not holding the administration accountable for making worldwide terrorism worse - are a real threat to the safety and security of this state and this nation.