Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Kirk's getting comical

Update: It seems to me this is actually easier to solve than I thought.

Kirk's campaign states, in this timeline they released, that he conducted interviews during pre-deployment training.
2. On December 10, Senator Durbin raised the issue of a special election for the senate, instead of a governor's pick.

3. That day, the Illinois media began calling all Illinois congressmen and other figures asking if they could run. Congressman Kirk was doing pre-deployment training as a reservist in Springfield, Virginia, each day, then working in his congressional office each night. DoD rules allow congressmen to perform duties incident to their congressional office while on reserve duty. Kirk gave interviews with WIND, WLS, WFLD, MSNBC. He mainly commented on the arrest of the Illinois governor and when asked, said he would not rule out a run.

4. On December 11, Congressman Kirk was interviewed by Politico, Fox National TV, WLS and WFLD.

5. CDR Kirk then went dark and departed the United States on the night of December 13, 2008 for Afghanistan. He served for two weeks in Afghanistan and did not give interviews.
Pre-deployment training isn't "reserve duty" it's active duty and the Pentagon considers it as much. If Kirk disagrees, he should release a copy of his fitrep that covers the time as well as a copy of his orders.

Update: It would also seem this violates the regs, too, considering the letter was released while Kirk was on active duty, but the DoD didn't mention it.

MaddowBlog catches Mark Kirk thanking a commenter at the Chicago Sun-Times for "setting the record straight" about his mixing politics with his military service. The only problem, the commenter in question "clears" Kirk of violating regulations, but not during the time of the incidents the DoD mentioned.

In other words, the comment might as well say "Mark Kirk didn't violate regulations during this time when the DoD isn't saying he violated regulations."

Update: [Removed]

Update: It seems to me that the confusion here could stem from the fact that the commenter mentions the dates between December 15th and January 2nd, when Kirk was actually in Afghanistan. However, Kirk has said before that he was actually on active duty for three weeks, which would include some of his time stateside. This is probably when he took part in the interview the Pentagon mentioned, which still makes it a no-no.

I have been extremely careful to back up every statement I've made about Kirk, so I apologize for this hasty post. I will continue to research and correct the record. I have contacted the Pentagon for further clarification. Regardless of this comment, the Pentagon spokesmen assures me their statement was exhaustively researched and vetted.

Update: A mention of a forthcoming post was deleted, as a source asked me not to continue with a line of inquiry.


Post a Comment

<< Home