Here is the bulk of what I have gathered against sKerry... feel free to use in any way you like. I've had it with these creeps & clowns:
-The Prince of Tides- Bush ads, Kerry ads, the Tides Foundation, and so much more--
“We have prepared what we call ‘Brown Books’ that contain damaging military records, personal credit histories, medical histories, psychiatric histories, divorce records, you name it,” our source told us. "We've got the goods on the Veterans who oppose Kerry."
Now if the RNC decided to do something like this to the Kerry humping supporters, i.e. check to see if there were some monetary or other gifts from a grateful and wealthy sugarmomma, the Dems and the so called MSM would be screaming from the rooftops about "Republican intimdation techiques" and "Karl Rove playbook" etc.....
“If they want to spread rumors and stories about John Kerry, we’ll spread rumors and stories about them. And some of the things they did in Vietnam were a lot worse than what they say John Kerry did,” our source concluded ominously."
I hardly think that signed affadavits qualify as "rumors," and O'Neill is an experienced barrister, who is unlikely to let slander and defamation issues pull the rug out from under his, and the other's, claims. If they have documented testimony about the Swiftvets, then let him bring it on. Don't spread rumors, answer facts with facts, affadavit with affadavit, official record with official record. Anything else just makes Kerry look like a bigger fool.
The most telling thing is the fact that Kerry doesn't refute the Swiftvets directly. I am sure O'Neill would be happy to debate him, as would many of the others.
All Kerry has to do is release the documents that would "exonerate" him. The funny thing is, he isn't doing it.
Makes you wonder about exactly who is telling the truth (well, not me..... )
They haven't got squat. No one could see Bush's military records until he released them. Which he did. Kerry still hasn't released his. So how did they get these other guys' records? They haven't; it's a bluff.
They could buy credit reports, but the newspaper that prints any of it will be bankrupt when they get done playing Fair Credit Reporting Act. Same with medical or psychiatric histories. In California, you can go to jail for releasing that stuff.
The fact of divorces are matters of public record, but whatever went on in them is not. So they don't have squat there, either.
This is either a bogus "news" story, or some Democrat had one Scotch too many when he was on the phone. It's bunk.