It is completely irrelevant who is paying for the website or ads. Somehow this is never an issue when dealing with leftist political advocacy groups. Why?

From your linked article (boldface mine):

But another group of Vietnam veterans, some of them partisans, portray him as an ambitious young officer who attempted to collect undeserved Purple Hearts for minor injuries and used those medals to cut short his tour.

So nobody supporting Kerry is "partisan?" How do you measure this? By what standard?

Your link, like many others, also tends to disprove the current image of Kerry, supported on his website biography, as having deliberately volunteered for dangerous duty. To be fair, not many men--even good men--would.

Even in the Globe article I quoted, there are several incidents of other veterans who, while not attacking Kerry, don't quite remember things the way Kerry does. Again to be fair, I would submit that anyone who thinks they can come out of a combat situation with a precise account of exactly what happened when and to who is probably mistaken. But that works both ways.

The same researchers did an article on Bush and the National Guard. Everyone is encouraged to compare the two on tone, and burdens of proof.