Tuesday, June 01, 2010

If you're just tuning in...

Because Rachel Maddow sent you here, here's the history of my Mark Kirk reporting, from 2005 to now.
  1. Mark Kirk is mentioned in an attack against Paul Hackett.

  2. It becomes clear it's a lie he went to Iraq.

  3. I called the Navy for clarification. They said he was full of it.

  4. I explain why it matters that he lied.

  5. Mark Kirk changes his website, more than 50 days after I first called.

  6. The Blumenthal issue makes me question how Kirk got away scot free? Also, I begin to question Kirk's claim he "deployed" to Afghanistan. Also, I call Chris Matthews staff, who refuse to call me back, despite the fact Matthews was willing to suggest Blumenthal was insane.

  7. More on the Kirk's claims to have deployed. The Intelligence Officer of the Year Award issue starts to break, driven by the blog Ellen of the Tenth.

  8. The Washington Post begins to ask about the award, but I provide more questions about Kirk's service.

  9. Proof that Kirk's claims to have "deployed" to Afghanistan are false.

  10. It all starts to break.
I know I mentioned him in a couple of other places, but that should be most of it. Let me know if I left out something important.

Update: Also, let me add this. I have the utmost respect for the work Mark Kirk actually did as a Navy Reserve intel officer. The fitness reports he's released are those of a talented, diligent officer and he has nothing to apologize for vis-a-vis his work. My quarrel is with those things he did not do, but claimed to have done. He claimed to have won an award he didn't. He did not deploy to Iraq, but claimed to be a veteran of Iraqi Freedom. He claimed to have deployed to Afghanistan when he used his connections to spend two weeks in 2008 and 2009 in Afghanistan, which does not meet the Navy's definition of "deployment" and, in my view, mocks those who spent six to eighteen months in combat zones.

There are more personal attacks on Mark Kirk out there, but I refuse to discuss them or link to them. Mark Kirk's personal life is his own and none of our business.

Again, I have the utmost respect for his service. If he had the same kind of respect for it I do, in fact, he might not have had to lie about it.

3 Comments:

Blogger Ellen Beth Gill said...

Thanks for the shout out Nit. Carl Nyberg figured out something else. Apparently, Kirk was not in the lead squadron as he claims to justify his Rufus Taylor Award winning claim. There is some evidence out that that it was the VAQ-140 and not Kirk's VAQ-209 that took the lead in the Rufus Taylor Award winning Attack Wing. Nyberg feels that Kirk may have obtained the award by asserting his connections and may well have applied for and lobbied for the award, but that isn't the same thing as doing the job that justifies the award.

6:05 AM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

Great blog. Have you seen Orrin Hatch's proposed bill that would make misstating your military service for personal advancement a misdemeanor and punishable up to 6 months in jail?

According to Hatch's office, Mark Kirk would not fall under this law, but Richard Blumenthal would...

7:05 AM  
Blogger Ellen Beth Gill said...

It took a while, but you finally got your admission from Kirk: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/kirk_campaign_mum_on_another_a.html

congrats.

11:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home