GOP Senatorial candidate lies about winning military award [Archive]

Thunder

30th May 2010, 05:37 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_illinois_senate_military_award

On a weekend dedicated to honoring military service, Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk found himself on the defensive over his past claims that he was named the U.S. Navy's intelligence officer of the year, an award he never won.

For years, Kirk and his staff have said he was officer of the year. Now, the Republican, who's in a tough race for President Barack Obama's old Senate seat, acknowledges that isn't true and says his official biography incorrectly described an award won by his unit, not Kirk personally.

I'm sure it was just a "mistake".

MattusMaximus

30th May 2010, 06:21 PM

"Mistake" my aching ass... I live in Congressman Kirk's district, and he's been trotting out his supposed military awards & credentials for years. And lots of people here have known for years that he's embellished his record. He's always been able to avoid discussing it up until now because he's been able to distract & deflect the issue, but I think now his race is too high profile for it to be ignored.

Now that I think about it, a few years back I attended one of his town hall meetings. And he always liked to make references to his "military record". Here's the catch... I recorded the whole meeting. I wonder if I have this specific lie on record?

thaiboxerken

30th May 2010, 06:23 PM

As much as I don't like the GOP, I don't really see this as a major issue.

Jekyll's Guest

30th May 2010, 07:11 PM

He wants to be Senator of Illinois, why even lie to puff up your military background? Is the boot of foreign oppression poised over Chicago?

Personally I'd be more impressed by lies of academic achievements.

Skeptic

30th May 2010, 10:03 PM

I never understood why people lie about their military records -- the easiest thing to check.

Jekyll's Guest

30th May 2010, 10:09 PM

I never understood why people lie about their military records -- the easiest thing to check.

I dunno, the Texas Air national Guard, for random example, seems pretty bad at keeping records.

:D

Megalodon

31st May 2010, 08:50 AM

I never understood why people lie about their military records -- the easiest thing to check.

Habit I would say... until the establishment of the intertubes as a mainstream thing it wasn't so easy to check, and much less easier to spread the word if it was a lie. Crooks could say whatever they wanted about their past actions to get advantage, specially if it was set in a far away place.

Enter the webs, with it's zillion bloggers dying to scoop any kind of news picking at the smallest thing, and journalists trying not to have to cite a blog for their scoops. Claims like those are trivial to check, and the payoff if they don't check out is enormous. A politician's old habits become very hazardous, very fast!

hgc

31st May 2010, 09:59 AM

Kirk ought to get on the phone to Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, and thank him for the immunization.

WildCat

31st May 2010, 10:31 AM

If that's all the dirt they can find on Kirk it won't carry them very far. Kirk's opponent was elected state Treasurer campaigning on how great he was helping run his family-owned Broadway Bank. Now Broadway Bank has failed, in large part due to bad loans to, among other people, a mafioso who was lent millions despite having been convicted and was awaiting sentencing while Alexi was chief loan officer. And the Illinois Treasury is many months behind on payments to state vendors because the state is broke and can't control spending.

So the choice is between a guy who slightly embellished his military record and a failed banker and treasurer of our bankrupt state.

I don't think this is the year of the failed banker in politics. Kirk is way ahead in the polls, and I don't see that changing because of this story.

Jekyll's Guest

31st May 2010, 10:36 AM

WildCat

31st May 2010, 10:42 AM

It would be petty, and it wouldn't lead anywhere, but what if his opponents started pushing to have him charged under the stolen valor law?

Could the stink be enough to obscure the banking issue and even things up?
I don't see how the award he claimed to have won individually from the Navy is covered under the Act, which only covers awards or medals awarded by Congress.

Jekyll's Guest

31st May 2010, 10:48 AM

I don't see how the award he claimed to have won individually from the Navy is covered under the Act, which only covers awards or medals awarded by Congress.

And Obama wasn't born in Kenya, but there are still people all over the U.S. who are unsure.

They just need some short term dirt, right? It's about getting the meme out there.

leftysergeant

31st May 2010, 03:34 PM

Well, it is a good measure of how bright the jerk is. He was an itnelligence officer. Intelligence officers analyse and assess known facts to extrapolate other facts. This requires tremendous attention to detail.

Jerk boy Kirk let something with erroneous information be published under his imprimatur.

Total dud, at best. To me it looks like total dud plus posturing poppinjay.

MikeMangum

1st June 2010, 03:13 PM

As much as I don't like the GOP, I don't really see this as a major issue.

I almost like the GOP, and I do see it as a major issue. It's like a job applicant lying on his resume, for starters. Additionally, it says very bad things about the guy's level of honesty. People usually don't come up with these sorts of "gilding the lily" type lies unless they are habitual liers.

hgc

1st June 2010, 06:08 PM

Hey, I heard this Kirk guy claim he was Captain of the Enterprise.

WildCat

1st June 2010, 06:25 PM

Hey, I heard this Kirk guy claim he was Captain of the Enterprise.
No, but the previous GOP candidate for that seat dropped out of the race because of a messy divorce with 7 of 9.

MattusMaximus

1st June 2010, 08:41 PM

It would be petty, and it wouldn't lead anywhere, but what if his opponents started pushing to have him charged under the stolen valor law?

Could the stink be enough to obscure the banking issue and even things up?

Well, the last I'd heard, since this whole flap hit the news Kirk's opponent is gaining on him in the polls. It seems that Kirk has lost his early momentum, and that's really bad news for a Republican in Illinois when the Democratic President is a home-state guy.

Random

2nd June 2010, 06:55 AM

I dunno, the Texas Air national Guard, for random example, seems pretty bad at keeping records.

:D

Not at all. They lost the records they needed to lose with surgical precision.

Jekyll's Guest

2nd June 2010, 09:04 AM

Not at all. They lost the records they needed to lose with surgical precision.

So their incompetency is highly competent? Interesting.

dudalb

2nd June 2010, 11:21 AM

KingMerv00

2nd June 2010, 11:58 AM

So the choice is between a guy who slightly embellished his military record and a failed banker and treasurer of our bankrupt state.

Remember kids, the wrongness of your acts is only relevant in comparison to the acts of your closest competition.

Jekyll's Guest

2nd June 2010, 01:17 PM

Jesus, if I was a Illinois voter I would probably write in "Mickey Mouse" or "Spider Man" on my ballot as a protest against having such a disgusting choice between a man who lies about his military record, and a man who has all the signs of a classic crooked Illinois politician.

I'd also dress as the character when entering the polling station.

But only because I refuse to break my regular habits just because of voting.

Spindrift

2nd June 2010, 01:23 PM

Jekyll's Guest

2nd June 2010, 01:51 PM

Looks like he stretched the truth before:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37472616/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Claimed he served in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when he was in the Navy Reserve but did not go overseas.

But in his defense, he had a bumper sticker and listened to bootleg tapes of the radio station the troops listened to.

He served in spirit, why is everyone so picky?

Jekyll's Guest

2nd June 2010, 01:52 PM

Also, had they needed a dingy to protect an Iraqi duckpond or whatever, he was ready to spring in to action.

I hope he becomes president one day. I look forward to him arriving at a press conference in a Battleship, wearing a Navy SEAL's outfit.

MikeMangum

2nd June 2010, 02:23 PM

Remember kids, the wrongness of your acts is only relevant in comparison to the acts of your closest competition.

Unfortunately, when elections are multiple choice questions, that will always be the case. Thus the phrase "lesser of two evils" has entered the political lexicon.

MattusMaximus

2nd June 2010, 02:40 PM

MattusMaximus

2nd June 2010, 02:42 PM

Looks like he stretched the truth before:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37472616/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Claimed he served in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" when he was in the Navy Reserve but did not go overseas.

Yup, I'd heard that one before as well, though I had forgotten about it. I think he's in trouble now - fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice & shame on me. I wouldn't be surprised if he might start getting some pressure from the Illinois GOP to withdraw.

ETA: I especially like this part...

The description of Kirk serving "in" the operation went beyond his website. Newspaper stories of the period routinely said Kirk served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and there's no sign that he sought corrections.

A 2004 op-ed column that Kirk co-wrote for the Washington Times also said he served in the conflict, and that's how Kirk was described when he appeared on cable talk shows.

It is the second time in less than a week that Kirk has had to explain his military record. He had long claimed he was named the U.S. Navy's intelligence officer of the year, but now acknowledges it was his unit that had won another award.

Kirk has sought to play down the discrepancy and portray questions about it as an attack on his military service.

Translation: "If you're criticizing me on this topic, you're really just insulting the troops!"

Like I said before, I knew he was slippery, because he's been my Congressman for 10 years, but this sort of reaction from him makes him even worse than I thought. And to think I actually helped vote this clown into office the first time back in 2000...

What a bastard :mad:

MattusMaximus

2nd June 2010, 03:03 PM

Looks as if the situation is even worse. Check this out from Politico...

Kirk gives defense another try (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38043.html)
... But the Republican’s efforts to play defense took a sharp hit late Tuesday, when the Chicago Tribune discovered that Kirk had offered a false explanation of his decision to correct the record about his service. While the congressman said his staff had discovered the inaccuracy while “[g]oing through my Fitness Reports for 1999/2000,” the Tribune reported that the Navy had actually alerted Kirk to his misrepresentations first, following inquiries from the media.

Making matters worse for the congressman, reports have shown that the controversy over the “Officer of the Year” award isn’t the first time Kirk has misrepresented his record. He previously claimed to be “the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom,” but only served stateside during the Iraq war. And [in] May, he told a gathering of U.S.-China experts he had commanded “the war room in the Pentagon,” which some military observers called an “implausible” exaggeration. ...

Great, so now it looks as if he's lying about lying. Get a shovel, because he just keeps digging the hole deeper :dig:

I wonder how long until the Illinois GOP dumps him?

MattusMaximus

2nd June 2010, 03:26 PM

On a related note, that is - related to Kirk's honesty, it seems that the good Congressman may have something else hidden in his closet...

http://blog.blogactive.com/2010/06/truth-or-consequences.html
Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party's dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That's more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn't co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn't THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don't Ask Don't Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn't. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

"Where was Mark Kirk?" I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.) ...

The read gets a lot more interesting from there. This is the same blogger who outed Rep. Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig. Now I'd heard rumors before about Kirk's sexual orientation, but never anything like this level of detail and whatnot.

I wonder how this sort of stuff will play with the GOP base here in IL? :popcorn1

hgc

2nd June 2010, 04:17 PM

No, but the previous GOP candidate for that seat dropped out of the race because of a messy divorce with 7 of 9.

That was funny. That's also when they imported the Yugo of candidates, Alan Keyes, to run against Obama. They should have stuck with the sex club guy.

BenBurch

2nd June 2010, 04:20 PM

I simply cannot see how this is an "honest error." If Kirk can say how such a really huge error happened, and how he was unaware of it until the Navy contacted him, I am prepared to listen, but all versions of this to date, including Kirk's press statements, reek.

BenBurch

2nd June 2010, 04:22 PM

That was funny. That's also when they imported the Yugo of candidates, Alan Keyes, to run against Obama. They should have stuck with the sex club guy.

As I know a lot of people who run such clubs, I was also made aware that there was a whole lot more to that story than got out... And had he stayed in, it would have gotten out. Which is sad as I think its nobody's business.

hgc

2nd June 2010, 04:31 PM

As I know a lot of people who run such clubs, I was also made aware that there was a whole lot more to that story than got out... And had he stayed in, it would have gotten out. Which is sad as I think its nobody's business.

How intriguing. You know, if you were to spill beans in this thread, I wouldn't mind one bit.

Brainster

2nd June 2010, 11:16 PM

On a related note, that is - related to Kirk's honesty, it seems that the good Congressman may have something else hidden in his closet...

http://blog.blogactive.com/2010/06/truth-or-consequences.html

The read gets a lot more interesting from there. This is the same blogger who outed Rep. Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig. Now I'd heard rumors before about Kirk's sexual orientation, but never anything like this level of detail and whatnot.

I wonder how this sort of stuff will play with the GOP base here in IL? :popcorn1

Well, I certainly hope they wouldn't vote for a poof. And he sure looks like one from the photo shown.

Is that not the reaction you're hoping for?:(

KingMerv00

3rd June 2010, 07:12 AM

Unfortunately, when elections are multiple choice questions, that will always be the case. Thus the phrase "lesser of two evils" has entered the political lexicon.

So if a Senator does something wrong we can't discuss it in isolation? Do we HAVE to bring up his/her counterpart from the opposing party?

BenBurch

3rd June 2010, 07:45 AM

How intriguing. You know, if you were to spill beans in this thread, I wouldn't mind one bit.

I know no more than that there was more to it. And the matter is done now. I didn't want to know the details at the time and certainly don't plan to search them out now.

Alferd_Packer

3rd June 2010, 11:33 AM

MattusMaximus

3rd June 2010, 11:45 AM

Well, I certainly hope they wouldn't vote for a poof. And he sure looks like one from the photo shown.

Is that not the reaction you're hoping for?:(

You're a pretty reasonable Republican, at least on social issues, from what I've seen, Brainster. For that I respect you a great deal.

But based upon the reaction from the Illinois GOP with Jack Ryan in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%28politician%29) - when they dumped him for his "questionable" lifestyle and replaced him with Alan Keyes - I wouldn't put anything past these goofballs. If it came out that there actually is something to the "Kirk is gay" allegations, then you can expect the Illinois GOP to drop him faster than you can say "homophobe".

MattusMaximus

3rd June 2010, 09:34 PM

Wow, you should see some of the comments on this article... talk about brutal, ouch.

Kirk apologizes for misstating military record (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100604/ap_on_el_se/us_illinois_senate_kirk)
Senate candidate Mark Kirk apologized Thursday for making inaccurate statements about his service in the Navy Reserves, while acknowledging more discrepancies.

"I apologize to everyone for these errors," the Illinois Republican said. "They were my responsibility entirely and I will fix them."

The five-time U.S. representative, who is competing with Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, also acknowledged new incidents where public statements didn't match reality about his service.

Kirk said a letter sent by his congressional district office last year described him as a veteran of Operation Desert Storm, the first Persian Gulf war, but he did not participate in that operation.

Kirk later flew over Iraq for intelligence reconnaissance missions in 2000. He said Thursday he does not recall coming under enemy fire on those flights and added it was sometimes hard to tell whether his plane was being targeted.

But C-SPAN video shows Kirk on the House floor saying he was fired upon. ...

Jekyll's Guest

4th June 2010, 07:42 AM

---Kirk later flew over Iraq for intelligence reconnaissance missions in 2000. He said Thursday he does not recall coming under enemy fire on those flights---

"Did you have a nice drive home honey?"

"Yeah, it was ok. The radio station was running an 80's marathon."

"Did you come under any enemy fire?"

"Hmmm....not that I recall."

:dl:

CORed

4th June 2010, 10:19 AM

Well, we do have a Green Party candidate...

Who probably has a lower probability of winning than Micky Mouse or Spider Man.

KingMerv00

4th June 2010, 12:50 PM

Who probably has a lower probability of winning than Micky Mouse or Spider Man.

Don't be silly. Spider-Man isn't old enough to run for President. Also, I think Micky is a secret Muslim.

Dorian Gray

4th June 2010, 04:02 PM

I get it! He told a bunch of outrageous lies because he's going to become a Democrat!

Either that, or he's going to become a Fox News pundit.

BenBurch

7th June 2010, 09:55 AM

It would appear that the "in the closet" rumor is true. Not sure how I feel about outing people, though.

Lurker

7th June 2010, 09:59 AM

So what has been the GOP response to this kerfluffle? I wonder since they attacked a veteran that won numerous awards and pooh-poohed his actual awards they must be practically apoplectic in their rage against someone who claimed awards that he did not earn.

No?

BenBurch

7th June 2010, 10:00 AM

The reaction so far; Deer in the headlights.

MattusMaximus

7th June 2010, 08:20 PM

It would appear that the "in the closet" rumor is true. Not sure how I feel about outing people, though.

Do you have confirmation from another source besides the one I mentioned earlier in the thread? If so, this is going to absolutely kill Kirk with the Illinois GOP & they'll likely dump him, just like they took out Jack Ryan in 2004, faster than you can say "homophobe". The hilarious thing is that the Democrats won't have to do anything, just sit back and watch the Illinois GOP eat its own (again).

:popcorn1

MattusMaximus

7th June 2010, 08:28 PM

Has anyone seen any updated polls on this IL Senate race since the news of Kirk's "embellishments" became public?

Tsukasa Buddha

7th June 2010, 10:27 PM

Please let him be replaced by Keyes!

(Wait, then no one could actually challenge the Dem... I'll settle him for wanted public sex in his divorce records)

BenBurch

8th June 2010, 07:43 AM

Do you have confirmation from another source besides the one I mentioned earlier in the thread? If so, this is going to absolutely kill Kirk with the Illinois GOP & they'll likely dump him, just like they took out Jack Ryan in 2004, faster than you can say "homophobe". The hilarious thing is that the Democrats won't have to do anything, just sit back and watch the Illinois GOP eat its own (again).

:popcorn1

Yes, but I can't reveal it. Personal communication from a former congressional staffer.

MattusMaximus

8th June 2010, 09:16 AM

Yes, but I can't reveal it. Personal communication from a former congressional staffer.

Whoa.

If someone spills the beans, Kirk is finished. The Illinois GOP will eat him alive, and it'll be 2004 all over again.

BenBurch

8th June 2010, 03:30 PM

BlogActive DID spill them.

Says Kirk TOLD him personally, and has two sex partners of his who describe his "parts" and describe the same features.

I don't know what else there is to spill.

MattusMaximus

17th June 2010, 09:50 PM

Wow, it just gets more and more interesting. Here's a recent story from my local paper about how Mark Kirk has had other issues related to his military record...

Kirk on defensive against Pentagon over politics (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=388150)
Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk's newest adversary in the latest controversy over his military service is the Defense Department itself.

The Pentagon says Kirk, a commander in the Navy Reserve, improperly got involved in politics two different times while on active duty. Kirk was "counseled" about each violation and was required to sign a statement acknowledging he knew the rules and wouldn't break them again, according to the Pentagon. ...

... Violating a directive against political activity while on duty would be a military crime that technically could result in a court martial, said Michelle Lindo McCluer, director of the National Institute of Military Justice.

Individual infractions like the ones at issue with Kirk would be far more likely to be resolved with something like a simple warning, McCluer said. But it's possible having two such violations could raise the stakes, possibly resulting in a letter of admonishment or a more serious letter of reprimand, which could damage an officer's career, she said.

Ouch. The bloodletting continues...