Ed O'Reilly, self-described challenger to John Kerry in the 2008 Senate primaries, has evidently hitched his wagon to the Swift Boat Liars' star.
See AllDemsOnBoard's diary on his recent comments about Kerry's military record. For instance:
"It goes to his credibility," said Ed O'Reilly, a Gloucester lawyer mounting a challenge to Kerry in the Democratic primary. "It needs to be cleared up."
Then there's this "response" to ADOB.
Well, Mr. O'Reilly, I suspect this choice will not turn out well for you.
Ed prefaces his comment this way:
If John Kerry was not positioning himself for another run at the White House (or lining up as a potential VP candidate), why would he be putting a documented portfolio together? Why did he call for the challenge? It is John Kerry who has brought this issue back up to "clear it up" and not me.
Yes, indeed. In Ed's world, a man need only defend his honor when higher office is at stake. Rebutting lies for the sake of that honor is the same thing as "calling for" T. Boone Pickens to issue a blowhard challenge to the world.
Way to blame the victim.
Then Ed gets to the nitty gritty of his "concern" for Kerry:
All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple. Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the "exit interview", all of this will be past us.
. . .
As I said, credibility is at issue and I want John Kerry to take the high road and show his crediblity and show the Honorable Discharge Papers he must now have.
Now exactly who is raising a question about Kerry's discharge, Ed? The mainstream media? Nope. Reputable bloggers? Nope. Why, not even SBVT made it a part of their public campaign in 2004.
In fact, only the least credible yellow journalists (like faux Pulitzer "nominee" Lipscomb) and the extreme end of the wingnut blogosphere have grasped at that straw, and then only to repeat each other's bad information. Even Mr. Pickens ~ cough John O'Neill ~ was too embarrassed to do more than drop an oblique insider- secret- code reference in his letter.
So I ask you again, Mr. O'Reilly, why are you using rightwing bloggers' smears and innuendos in what you claim is an ehtical campaign?
Now, if you were really interested in knowing the truth, I have to wonder why you seem to have done so little research of your own. Aren't you a lawyer? Don't you know how to read a document?
You see, Kerry HAS shown his "original discharge papers" and they're still posted on the Internet as a matter of fact.
If you had bothered to read them, and the statutes and regulations upon which they're based, you would know that:
1. Lt. Kerry was assigned to the inactive Ready Reserve upon separation from active duty on January 3, 1970. He was offered the opportunity to extend this Ready Reserve commitment on March 1, 1972 and when that offer was not accepted, he was transferred to the Standby Reserve-Inactive on July 1, 1972.
If you'd done your research, you'd know by now that all commissioned officers in the Naval Reserve hold appointment during the pleasure of the President and those appointments are for an indefinite term (10 U.S.C. Sec. 593(b); currently 10 U.S.C. Sec. 12203(c)). Thus, one remains on the rolls until one resigns one's commission or is separated from service through procedures set forth by the Secretary of the Navy as deemed necessary for the maintenance of a sound officer corps.
2. Kerry's Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Naval Reserve was issued pursuant to the recommendation of a board of officers convened "to examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve on inactive duty and determine whether they should be retained on the rolls of the Reserve Component or separated from the naval service pursuant to the Secretarial instructions promulgated in BUPERSMAN 3830300." (Here's a big hint: that means Kerry was still an "officer of the Naval Reserve" in 1978, and so could not have been discharged earlier.)
That regulation, BUPERSMAN 3830300 (register here to access), authorized a review of records by a board of officers and discharge of, among others, officers who had served in the the Standby Reserve-Inactive (on Inactive Status List) for a period of three years or more - or even those who couldn't be bothered to keep in touch.
As Rowan Scarborough of the not-so-liberal Washington Times, who took the trouble to pick up the phone and find out, wrote:
Navy officials say today that the board was standard operating procedure at that time for all reservists and does not indicate Mr. Kerry did anything wrong.
Another hint: if it had been a review by a board convened to upgrade a bad discharge, the document would have referenced 10 USC Sec. 1553 (virtually unchanged since the '50s), not the statutes and regulations authorizing a review of officers on inactive duty to determine if they should still stay on the rolls.
3. As Kerry had served over 5 years on the Inactive Status List, he was honorably discharged on February 16, 1978.
PS, there is no "exit interview" on this type of discharge. Which - all together now - you would have known if you'd bothered to look it up.
----------------------------
See, it's all right there in the records, Ed. You know, the ones Kerry released?