As I've pointed out
, journalists are catching up to Nitpicker on the issue of Mark Kirk's claims to have "deployed" to Afghanistan. But Kirk's campaign seems to be making some bold claims
in defending their candidates exaggerations.
Referring to Kirk's missions, Navy Cmdr. Danny Hernandez said, "I would think that would be (considered) two weeks of annual training," Hernandez said. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training."
Kirk, a five-term congressman and Navy Reserve commander, is locked in a battle with Democratic opponent Alexi Giannoulias, the Illinois state treasurer, for the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Obama.
Kirk's campaign responded the congressman was accurate, saying deployment constituted any reassignment of forces.
"Congressman Kirk was proud to deploy to Afghanistan in 2008 and 2009 on military orders issued by the U.S. Navy," Kirk spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said.
In other words, the Kirk campaign is claiming the Navy spokesperson doesn't understand what constitutes a "deployment." Too bad for Kirk the Navy has a clear cut definition
for the word.
Deployment. Either a period of at least 90 consecutive days with a deployed unit or two deployments of at least 80 days each with a given 12-month period. No waivers of this requirement will be made.