The gNOp, Mark Kirk, who is vying for Pres Obama Senate seat is caught in another military lie.

[Cha]

"KIRK'S PROBLEMS GET A LITTLE WORSE.... Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk ran into trouble recently when a variety of claims about his military service -- in speeches, in correspondence, and in written materials -- were proven to be untrue. Making matters worse for the Illinois Republican, the story isn't quite done yet.

As of about a week ago, I think the list was up to eight separate incidents: Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon"; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; and (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; and (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar.

This week, we have a new one for the list.

When Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk says he repeatedly deployed to Afghanistan with the Navy, he's referring to two-week training missions as part of his annual reservist requirements.

After acknowledging a series of misstatements that embellished his Navy service, Kirk is being challenged over his use of the military term "deployment," and this could be yet another opportunity for critics to parse his words in what has recently become a resume-bashing battle with Democratic Senate opponent Alexi Giannoulias.

Deployment can mean more than one thing in the military, but it is often used to describe service members going off to war for an extended time.

Navy Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said there is a difference between annual training and being deployed, which can sometimes last more than a year.

"I would think that would be (considered) two weeks of annual training," Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said of Kirk's stints. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training."

The official response from the Kirk campaign is that the candidate's definition of "deploy" is different from that of the U.S. military. As political spinning goes, this needs some work.

Making matters slightly worse, the Pentagon said this week that Kirk "twice violated military policy by participating in political activities while on active duty -- once in 2008 and once in 2009."

Remember when Mark Kirk's selling point as a candidate was his military service?

For more on all of these controversies, Nitpicker is the guy to rely on. Indeed, it's worth emphasizing that he's broken many of these Kirk-related incidents that were later picked up by major outlets."

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024259.php#1785715

[quiet.american]

1. Hey, Cha - saw that over at Benen's, too.The GOP's strategy seems to be to actually destroy reality.

Since Frank Luntz's memo to Mitch "The Chin" McConnell telling him that the GOP had nothing left but to basically *lie* about the nature of financial reform, Republicans seem to feel unleashed to simply make everything up as they go along.

Got caught lying about being deployed? No problem, just say you have a different definition of the word.

Got caught out as the founder and head of the Board that you're trumpeting as the basis for you're being a "board-certified opthalmologist" (Rand Paul)? No problem, just say "....that he created his own board because he was unsatisfied with the way the established certification organizations operate."

Got called out for wanting to privatize the VA? No problem, in your denial just say something like:

"ANGLE (R-Teabagger): He's 87 years old and has Parkinson's and we have to pay more and more for his health care. I know he pays over $800 a month in prescription drugs that we can't get through his VA nor through Medicare -- they just won't cover those things. And I know lots of seniors --

BECKER: Should they cover those things?

ANGLE (R-Teabagger): No, not if you're working towards a privatized system. And he can pay for them. That's my whole point.

(?)

These people are sick jokes that are not funny.

[Cha]

2. In my experience the gNOp have always been that

way..Liars. If someone is a republicon I know they lie..that's just the way it is.

Mark Kirk's been going at it for a long time and now when the time is most important for him not to get caught in lies..he's getting busted.

I know he hasn't learned anything.. he's just digging in deeper but since he was trying to promote himself on his military record he should be kicking himself all the way to Liar's Anonymous right now.

They were lying well before frank luntz gave them the toxic seal of approval.

That's a huge group of people not willing to face reality..we had 8 years of bushcheney tearing down our country in the name of Orwell and now along comes President Obama dealing in reality and they start blubbering like spoiled younger versions of themselves.

[quiet.american]

3. No argument there! :) nt

[Cha]

4. Mark Kirk(R) vying for Obama' Senate Seat now has TEN Military LIES.

AND THEN THERE WERE 10.... "Top 9 Lists" just don't have the same impact, so I'm glad to see the list of Mark Kirk's falsehoods grow just a little more.

The Pentagon said Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has been cautioned twice for improperly mingling politics with his military service, but Kirk's campaign denied any improper conduct Tuesday.

The Defense Department said Monday night that Kirk, a commander in the Navy Reserve, was warned after two incidents of political activity while he was on active duty. Before being allowed to go on active duty again in Afghanistan, Kirk was required to sign a statement acknowledging he knew to avoid all political work.

"Commander Kirk was counseled about each of his violations after they occurred and signed a statement acknowledging the limitations on his ability to participate in campaign activities while on active duty. He was required to complete this acknowledgment before being allowed to begin active duty in December 2009," the Pentagon said.

This wouldn't necessarily count as one of Mark Kirk's (R-Ill.) misstatements of fact, except his campaign issued a very specific statement last week, insisting, "The fact is, Congressman Kirk never violated Defense Department policies." According to the Pentagon, that's not true.

And unless I'm missing any, I think that brings us to a new, even total: Kirk (1) falsely claimed he served "in" Operation Iraqi Freedom; (2) falsely claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon"; (3) falsely claimed to have won the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award; (4) falsely claimed to have been shot at by the Iraqi Air Defense network; (5) falsely claimed to be a veteran of Desert Storm; (6) falsely claimed to be the only lawmaker to serve during Operation Iraqi Freedom; (7) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kosovo; (8) falsely claimed to have been shot at in Kandahar; (9) falsely claimed to have been repeatedly "deployed" to Afghanistan; and (10) falsely claimed not to have violated Defense Department rules on mingling politics with his military service.

At this point, perhaps Kirk's Senate campaign should start listing the military-related claims the candidate has made that aren't false.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024281.php#1786229